localize-comp

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: duplication preserves originals, nested precomps are safely duplicated, Arabic detection and RTL alignment, and non-text layers unchanged. This meets the full burden.

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, well-structured paragraph of four sentences. Each sentence serves a purpose: core action, preservation of other content, nested precomp handling, and caller responsibility. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers input, behavior, nesting, and caller duty. However, it does not explicitly state that the duplicated composition appears in the project (implied by 'create'), nor mention error conditions for missing layers or invalid paths. For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, this is very good but slightly incomplete.

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 100%, but the description adds significant context: explains path resolution, safe duplication, default behaviors (active comp if omitted, name defaults), and interaction between layerName/layerIndex vs path. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a localized duplicate of a composition by swapping translated text, preserving other layers/effects. It distinguishes from siblings like create-text-layer by specifying the duplication aspect and nested path handling.

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 explains the caller's responsibility for translation and mentions auto-detection logic, but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools for when to use alternatives. The guidance is clear but not comprehensive in differentiating usage scenarios.

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