set_effects

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

The description discloses that the operation replaces all existing effects and can clear effects, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true). No contradiction with annotations. It could mention idempotency or permission requirements but is sufficient.

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 concise sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and key behavior. No unnecessary words, and the critical information about replacing effects and clearing is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the side effect and parameter structure. It could mention the response (e.g., returns the updated node or success status) but is not essential given the destructive nature.

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?

The input schema already has full (100%) description coverage for both parameters. The description does not add additional semantic detail about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it applies specific effects (drop shadow, inner shadow, layer blur, background blur) to a node, explicitly replaces all existing effects, and can clear effects with an empty array. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_fills or set_strokes.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to apply effects) and what happens (replaces existing effects). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the purpose is obvious and the sibling tools list shows distinct alternatives like create_effect_style.

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