add_compositor_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does useful work by stating that effects apply to every render and that returned node names are used to edit or remove effects, but it omits prerequisites, failure behavior when no compositor exists, and any indication that this mutates the scene file.

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 purpose and ordering rule are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the long per-effect enumeration, while bulky, is dense reference material that earns its space. Slight bloat from exhaustive parentheses that could be trimmed.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what to pass and what comes back. The main omission is the compositor prerequisite and error conditions, which matter given a sibling setup_compositor exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates every effect's tunable input labels and gives a concrete settings example using those labels. The remaining gap is default behavior when settings is omitted or contains unknown keys.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a post-processing effect at the end of the compositor chain') and specifies placement, so it is clearly distinct from remove_compositor_effect and set_compositor_effect by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

'Effects apply to every render in order, so add glare before film grain' gives real ordering guidance, and the Returns section hints that the result should be used for later edits/removal. But it never says when to add a new effect versus modifying one with set_compositor_effect, nor what prerequisite (a compositor setup) must exist.

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