pr_addGraphic

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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write with no open-world access, and the description adds value beyond them by stating the return value ('returns editable parameter names') even though no output schema exists. It doesn't cover failure behavior (missing template name, occupied track segment) or whether placement ripples the timeline.

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?

One front-loaded sentence packs the verb, the accepted input forms, the effects, and the return value with almost no filler. The em-dash parentheticals make it dense but it remains readable.

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 an 8-parameter, all-optional mutation tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description covers the important semantics: template source, text injection format, timing, duration, and the returned editable parameter names. The only real shortfall is which template parameter to use and any preconditions on the target sequence.

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 coverage is only 38%, so the description must compensate, and it does for several gaps: it clarifies that `path` may be a built-in template name or a .mogrt file and gives the `texts` shape as {paramName: text}. However, the relationship between the `path` and `template` parameters is never disambiguated, and `text` vs `texts` precedence is unstated.

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?

Specific verb (place) plus resource (Motion Graphics template / .mogrt) and the scope of the side effects (text, duration, track, time). It's clearly distinguishable from pr_placeClip or pr_applyEffect, though the sibling xapp_mogrtToPremiere covers similar ground and the description never contrasts with it.

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 'built-in by name or .mogrt path' framing implies when it applies (adding titles/lower thirds to a sequence), but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to xapp_mogrtToPremiere or pr_applyEffect. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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