removeEffect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails it: it does not say whether removal is destructive/undoable, whether it errors when the named effect or layer does not exist, or what happens to keyframes and properties attached to the removed effect. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and target lead. It is arguably too terse given the mutation semantics, but there is no structural waste.

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?

A destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and no statement of success/failure behavior or side effects. Given the sibling context (applyEffect, setEffectProperties, reorderEffect), the agent needs at least a hint about preconditions and reversibility that the description never provides.

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 the five params (compName, layerName, layerIndex, effectName, effectIndex) are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description does not clarify the ambiguity inherent in the schema, namely that layer and effect can be addressed either by name or by index and that all five params are optional.

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 (Remove) and resource (effect from a layer), which an agent can act on directly and implicitly distinguishes it from applyEffect/addEffect siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling or scope constraint (e.g., effect must already exist on that layer), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative family (applyEffect, reorderEffect, setEffectEnabled). The use case is inferable from the name alone, but the description itself adds nothing about context or exclusions.

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