ae_essentialGraphics

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the description only needs to add context. It does disclose the three distinct modes (add / set name / export), which is useful, but says nothing about prerequisites (comp must be open, template name likely required for a usable mogrt) or whether an existing file at exportPath is overwritten.

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?

A single well-front-loaded sentence with the operation list up front and the schema shape in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical notation is slightly denser than natural prose.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all three modes but omits prerequisites and result behavior, and the 25% schema coverage leaves parameter formats under-specified. Adequate to attempt a call, not adequate to call it reliably on the first try.

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 only 25% — only compositionName and layer are documented in the schema — so the description should compensate. It does map the shapes ({layer, property, name?}[] for add, exportPath for export, templateName for naming), but leaves the most ambiguous parameter (the 'property' string format) and exportPath expectations completely unexplained.

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 names the resource (Essential Graphics panel) and three concrete operations: adding properties, setting the template name, and exporting a .mogrt. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like xapp_mogrtToPremiere, which moves an already-made mogrt rather than authoring one. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly frame the 'and/or' combination as a single call surface.

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 phrase 'and/or export ... for Premiere' hints at the workflow (author graphics, then hand off to Premiere), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, nor a pointer to the closest alternative (xapp_mogrtToPremiere) or to ae_executeCommand. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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