comp_remove_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (remove) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether the removal is permanent, whether it affects the composition timeline, whether it requires the composition to be in a certain state, or what happens if the text_id does not exist. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and object. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, though conciseness itself is good.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the effect on the composition, error conditions, or any state requirements. An agent would need to guess or rely on external knowledge to call this tool correctly in a real workflow.

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. It mentions 'identifier' but does not explain that comp_id identifies the composition and text_id identifies the text overlay, nor does it clarify the relationship between the two parameters. The schema itself only provides types and a $ref, which is minimal. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('text overlay'), and identifies the object by 'identifier'. It is clear about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like comp_add_text or comp_update_text, though the verb 'remove' makes the distinction fairly obvious.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the composition must exist, the text overlay must exist), no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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