create_effect_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuine value by noting the style is 'local' (not a published library style) and by describing the return value, but it says nothing about required permissions, duplicate-name behavior, or what happens on invalid effect input.

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 compact sentences, zero filler, with the resource type and example front-loaded and the follow-on action named last. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 3-parameter creation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what it makes and what it returns. The only gap is failure-mode behavior (duplicate names, invalid effect combos), which an agent would need but which is not essential to calling it.

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%, with each parameter and nested effect field already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added signal is the 'Shadow/lg' naming example, which duplicates the schema's own 'Shadow/md' example rather than adding new meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a local effect style') with a concrete example value and a stated effect ('Returns the style id for apply_effect_style'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools update_effect_style, apply_effect_style, and create_text_style.

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 closing clause implicitly tells the agent this is the creation step that must precede apply_effect_style, which gives real workflow context. It stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance, e.g. how to handle an already-existing style of the same name vs. update_effect_style.

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