Change composition settings

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

The annotations already mark this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description matches by enumerating the settings it mutates; there is no contradiction. However, it adds no further behavioral context such as reversibility, effects on existing layers, or active-composition fallback behavior.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase maps to a parameter or capability, and it avoids repeating schema details.

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?

The description captures most configurable settings and, combined with the fairly descriptive schema, lets an agent invoke the tool correctly. It omits resolutionFactor and any return or error behavior, but for a setter tool with schema-provided parameter details, these are minor gaps.

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 schema covers 60% of parameters and already documents comp, duration, work areas, backgroundColor, and resolutionFactor. The description adds meaning to otherwise undocumented parameters: 'Rename' clarifies name, 'resize' clarifies width/height, and 'frame rate' clarifies frameRate. It does not mention resolutionFactor, but it compensates for most schema gaps.

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 uses specific verbs ('Rename or resize', 'change') and names the exact composition settings it affects: duration, frame rate, work area, and background. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ae_create_comp and ae_comp_info even without naming them.

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 use for mutating an existing composition's settings, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ae_create_comp or ae_comp_info. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints, so usage guidance is only inferred from the word 'change'.

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