modify_composition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description does not disclose whether the tool is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing properties), whether partial updates are allowed, or if there are side effects. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, this is 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?

A single short sentence is concise but lacks structure. It fails to expand on the operation, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema. While not verbose, it does not provide a clear, front-loaded summary of the tool's scope.

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 8 parameters, no required params, nested objects, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how partial updates work. The tool is moderately complex, and the description is too minimal.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. However, the description adds no extra semantics, such as format constraints for backgroundColor (e.g., RGBA vs hex), or whether values are optional and what the default behavior is. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers all params.

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 'Modify an existing composition', which clearly identifies the verb (modify) and resource (composition). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_layer' or 'modify_effect_properties', which have similar structure. The input schema shows many editable properties, adding some specificity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_layer' or other composition-specific tools. There is no discussion of prerequisites (e.g., composition must exist), or when to use compId vs compName. This forces the agent to infer usage from context.

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