add_effect

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds meaningful defaults ("Without item or range it covers the whole sequence") and explains knob-setting behavior, but omits permission requirements, side effects, and error behavior for invalid effect types.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action and follow with the knob/scope defaults. It is efficient, though the line break and the parenthetical example could be tightened slightly.

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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameters unexplained. An output schema exists, so return values need not be covered, but the omission of project/sequence/track/timeline semantics is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains `knobs` and implies `effect_type` via 'Nuke node class', and mentions item/range defaults, but leaves `track`, `project`, `sequence`, `timeline_in`, and `timeline_out` completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (add a soft effect) and clarifies that the effect is a Nuke node class with concrete examples ("Grade", "Transform", "Text2"). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like add_clip_to_track or add_track, but the resource is distinct enough for selection.

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 scope (over a shot or frame range, whole sequence by default) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternate tools. The default behavior is a useful hint, but an agent still has to infer applicability.

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