object_compose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only lists capabilities. It does not explain side effects such as whether source objects are modified, whether output_path is required, how keep_source affects the operation, or whether trace bitmap rasterizes content.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words, and it packs a useful list of operations into a compact form. However, the dense comma-separated list could be better structured to group related variants, and it omits operational detail that the tool's complexity warrants.

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?

This is a complex 10-parameter multi-variant tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides only an operation list. It does not explain which parameters apply to which variant, whether input_path/output_path are required for certain operations, or how the composition result is returned. The description is not sufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a high-level catalog of variants but does not map specific parameter values of `kind` to operations or clarify how `value`, `target`, and `select_all` interact. It provides marginal value 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Compose objects') and enumerates the supported operations, including text on path, clipping, masking, grouping, and tracing. It conveys the tool's scope well, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from overlapping siblings like object_clone or path_boolean.

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 lists operations a user might perform, so usage context is loosely implied, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer object_compose over related tools such as object_clone, path_boolean, or path_effect. No alternatives, exclusions, or selection conditions are provided.

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