set_work_area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set the work area', which implies a mutation but does not specify the effects (e.g., whether existing work area settings are overwritten, if it affects playback or rendering, or if it requires the composition to be open). It also does not state whether the operation is reversible or if there are side effects on existing layers or markers. This lack of detail is significant for a mutating tool.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is too minimal – it provides the bare minimum without any elaboration. It is structured with the verb first, which is good, but it lacks any additional context that would make it effective. It is not wasteful, but it is under-specified, so it earns a middle score.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and a moderate parameter count with 50% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It explains the basic action but does not cover edge cases, prerequisites, or the full meaning of parameters like 'compId' and 'compName' (e.g., which one takes precedence, or if either is sufficient). For a mutating tool with optional parameters, deeper context is needed, but the description only states the obvious.

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 50%, with 'start' and 'duration' described as times in secondscars. The description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides ow – it just says 'set the work area' without explaining how start and duration define it. For the two undocumented parameters ('compId' and 'compName'), the description offers no guidance, but the baseline for 50% coverage is 3, which is scored because the schema gives some meaning and the description does not contradict it.

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 the action ('Set the work area') and the resource ('a composition'), which is clear enough for basic understanding. However, it does little to distinguish this from siblings like 'modify_composition' or 'get_composition_info' — the verb 'set' implies mutation, but the specific scope (work area) is the only differentiator. The description lacks detail on what 'work area' means in context (e.g., it may refer to the In/Out points of the composition timeline).

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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., selecting a composition) or when not to use it. The context of composition management is implied by the sibling tools, but the description itself offers no usage context, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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