comp_add_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating create operation but does not explain what side effects occur, whether validation is performed, what happens with defaults, or what response is returned. The phrase 'percentage positions' is the only behavioral detail beyond the bare create action.

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 wasted words. It places the core action first and adds the key distinguishing qualifier at the end, making it easy to parse. However, given the tool's parameter count and sibling set, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites like an existing comp_id, how timing values are interpreted, what defaults apply, or what the tool returns after adding the text overlay. The one-sentence summary leaves too much for the agent to infer from names and schema constraints.

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%, and the description must compensate for the 12 undocumented parameters. 'Percentage positions' clarifies the meaning of x_pct and y_pct, but it does nothing for comp_id, text, start, duration, color, align, font_family, font_size_px, w_pct, or bg_color. The bulk of the parameter semantics remain implicit in property names and defaults.

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 action and resource: 'Add a text overlay', which clearly distinguishes this from generic overlay tools like comp_add_overlay and clip manipulation tools. The qualifier 'with percentage positions' adds a meaningful scope detail that helps identify the intended coordinate system, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus comp_add_overlay, comp_update_text, captions_write_srt, or other text-related tools. There are no context cues about prerequisites, such as the composition needing to exist, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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