set_composite_type

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the auto-switch to stack view, which is a key side effect. But it does not mention other behavioral traits like whether the change is reversible, if it affects other settings, or error responses. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not comprehensive coverage.

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 concise: two sentences followed by a list of allowed values. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary details without extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simple input schema and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, auto-switch behavior, and parameter values. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., loaded source) or return values, but the output schema likely covers returns. A score of 4 reflects sufficient completeness for a straightforward setter tool.

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 has 0% description coverage and only provides a default value without enum constraints. The description lists all allowed values ('over', 'add', 'difference', '-difference', 'replace', 'topmost'), which is essential for correct invocation. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of constraints.

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 'Set the compositing mode when in stack view', specifying the verb (set) and resource (compositing mode) with context (stack view). This distinguishes it from sibling set_* tools like set_cdl or set_lut, which operate on different parameters.

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 notes that it automatically switches to stack view if not already in it, giving context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or name alternatives, though sibling tools cover distinct settings.

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