set-effect-property

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only says 'set or keyframe' without detailing side effects, mutation risks, requirements, or behavior when omitted parameters are used. This is insufficient for a complex mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and target. Every word adds value and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested keyframeOptions, no output schema), a one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain when keyframing occurs (e.g., via timeInSeconds), how targeting precedence works, or any constraints. The schema provides detailed parameter info, but behavioral context is thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a descriptive comment, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'using name/index/path', which loosely aligns with effectName, effectIndex, and propertyPath, but does not deepen understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Set or keyframe') and the target ('any property on an existing layer effect'), and specifies the addressing methods (name/index/path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply-effect or setLayerExpression, though it could more explicitly contrast with set-effect-keyframe.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for modifying properties on existing layer effects but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It lacks exclusions or conditions, so it remains at an implied-usage level.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.