Modify a local effect style's name, description, or effects; any nodes using it update automatically.
Update the name, description or effects of a local effect style. Nodes using the style update automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New style name | |
| effects | No | New effects, replacing the old ones | |
| styleId | Yes | ID of the effect style (from get_styles or create_effect_style) | |
| description | No | New description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the propagation side effect ('Nodes using the style update automatically'), which the schema does not state. However it omits permission/auth requirements, reversibility, and confirmation that unmentioned fields are preserved versus cleared.
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, both front-loaded and earn their place: the first states the operation and fields, the second states the propagation behavior. No filler or repetition.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials but is thin. It does not clarify partial-update semantics (all update fields are optional) or what the call returns, leaving gaps a careful caller would want.
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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the three optional fields (name, description, effects) but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema, which already documents the effects structure, colors, and defaults.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Update the name, description or effects of a local effect style.' The 'local effect style' scope and the enumerated updatable fields make it distinguishable from create_effect_style, apply_effect_style, and delete_style. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The agent is not told, for example, that existing styles should be discovered via get_styles or created via create_effect_style, nor when to prefer apply_effect_style over editing a style definition. Only the schema's styleId hint gestures at this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.