applyEffect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the effect is appended or replaces existing effects, what happens if the effect or layer is not found, or whether a target layer must be selected first — gaps that matter for a 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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the resource. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and targeting detail noted elsewhere.

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 five parameters, a nested properties object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits how to disambiguate the target layer (compName+layerName vs layerIndex), how the initial properties object behaves, and any error/return context.

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 100%, so all five parameters (including the nested properties object) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the effect can be given as display name or matchName, adding no meaning beyond the schema's own example list, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Apply an effect or third-party plugin to a layer") and clarifies that the effect is identified by display name or matchName. This makes it easily distinguishable from siblings like setEffectProperties, removeEffect, and reorderEffect, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 (attach an effect to a layer) and gives the naming convention for effectName, but offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no prerequisites. It does not explain how to choose the target layer among compName/layerName/layerIndex, which an agent must infer.

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