spatial_apply_composition_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it normalizes steps into a batch queue, blocks unresolved generated assets by default, and gates editor placement on two flags. This gives an agent an accurate mental safety model, though it does not detail other side effects like focus_viewport or select_actors.

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?

Three tight paragraphs plus a minimal example; the KB pointer is useful and the sentence about mutation gating earns its place. No filler.

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 14-parameter bridge tool with no parameter descriptions, the high-level flow is helpful but incomplete: it does not explain how to compose the plan JSON, what 'review' mode returns, or what the various blockers enforce. The existing output schema does not fill the parameter-semantics gap.

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 coverage is 0%, and only composition_plan_json and dry_run appear in the example; the other 12 parameters (limit, default_tags, layout_preflight_json, block_on_preflight_errors, etc.) receive no explanation in the description. The description cannot compensate for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Apply or review a whole spatial composition placement queue,' and clarifies it is a bridge accepting three named upstream output types. It is clear enough to distinguish from the many spatial_plan_* siblings, though it never names an alternative.

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 states the input types that select this tool (interior composition, screenshot reconstruction, or generated-asset binding output) and explains when editor placement is actually executed (dry_run=false and allow_mutation=true). It does not explicitly list when not to use it versus sibling placement tools, but the context is clear.

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