add_av_layer

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 only states the basic action without mentioning prerequisites (footage must exist in project), effects on composition, what happens with conflicting param combinations, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

While the description is a single sentence and free of fluff, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful for a tool with 5 parameters and 0 required. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness; here the brevity sacrifices essential context.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, plus a moderate number of parameters and many sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain valid parameter combinations, how the layer is positioned, or what constitutes a successful invocation. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without external documentation.

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 schema has 5 parameters with only 40% description coverage. The tool description adds zero information about how parameters like compId, compName, or startTime are used. It does not clarify whether compId or compName identifies the target composition, nor does it explain the role of startTime. The minimal schema descriptions ('Project item ID', 'Project item name') are not supplemented.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Add a footage item as a layer') that clearly states the action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like add_solid_layer or add_text_layer, as it omits that this is specifically for adding a layer using an existing footage item from the project library.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 40 sibling tools for adding layers (e.g., add_solid_layer, add_text_layer) and related tools like import_footage, the agent receives no help in choosing the correct tool for a footage-based layer addition.

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