add_expression_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Add an expression control effect' – a mutation – but does not disclose whether it modifies the layer in place, whether it is reversible, what side effects occur, or any dependencies. This is minimal and insufficient.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it may be too brief for a tool with 7 parameters, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides virtually no contextual guidance. It does not explain parameter relationships, default behavior, or prerequisites. This is severely incomplete for an effect-adding tool with multiple control types.

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 has 7 parameters, 0% description coverage. The description provides zero information about parameters like controlType, controlName, defaultValue, or how compId/layerName/layerIndex relate. There is no explanation of what the enum values mean or how default value works. The description adds no semantic value beyond the raw 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 action ('Add an expression control effect') and the target resource ('a layer'). It is a specific verb+resource construction that accurately reflects the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like apply_effect or set_expression, which could also be used for adding controls or expressions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it (e.g., when using apply_effect might be more appropriate). With 57 sibling tools, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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