setup_compositor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the destructive facet of reset ('Throw away the current compositor tree and start clean') plus the resulting tree structure. It stops short of saying what happens if a compositor already exists without reset (no-op vs error) or any permission/context requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then the sibling caveat, then Args/Returns. Slightly wasteful: the Returns block restates the effect chain already implied by sentence one, and the final clause is garbled ('effect chain, render to output').

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 single-optional-parameter setup tool with an output schema (so return shape needn't be explained), the description covers purpose, routing to the sibling, the parameter, and the blast radius of reset. Only the pre-existing-compositor case is unaddressed.

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 does: 'reset: Throw away the current compositor tree and start clean' explains both meaning and consequence of the only parameter. A note on the default (false) behavior would have closed the gap fully.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it ensures the scene has a compositor node tree wiring Render Layers into the output, and that effects stack between them. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_compositor_effect, which it says calls this tool internally.

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?

Gives an explicit when/when-not: 'add_compositor_effect calls this itself, so it is only needed to start over.' The alternative is named and the condition that selects it is stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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