edit_composition_arc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full weight of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that operations can be both read-only preview and mutating edit, that payloads additionally support load/unload, and that 'every mutation is read back and rolled back on failure.' This is non-obvious and valuable context for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 two sentences and each sentence earns its place. The first sentence front-loads the primary function, and the second adds critical behavioral details about load/unload and rollback. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool has 8 parameters (3 required) with no schema descriptions and no meaningful parameter guidance in the description. The description omits crucial information about what values the action parameter accepts, how arc_type is defined, and prerequisites or side effects, making it insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional exploration.

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 for missing parameter explanations, but it does not. The only parameter-related hint is 'Payloads also support load/unload,' which loosely informs arc_type and action, but it leaves 8 parameters including prim_path, asset_path, command_id, and idempotency_key entirely unaddressed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Preview or edit a reference/payload arc,' clearly identifying the tool's subject matter. It also adds functional detail about payload load/unload support. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like edit_sublayer or set_variant_selection, but the resource type is distinct enough to disambiguate.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a reference/payload arc needs to be previewed or edited, and explicitly mentions that payloads support load/unload. However, it does not name alternative tools or specify exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the exact selection criteria.

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