add_av_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Add a footage item as a layer' without mentioning side effects, required project state, or potential issues. It doesn't clarify whether this is destructive or what happens to existing layers.

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 short sentence, which makes it concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently detailed. It earns a middle score because it's not verbose but lacks substance.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain key details like what startTime means, how compId vs compName are used, or what the expected return value is. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description provides no information about any of the five parameters. With schema description coverage only at 40%, the description should compensate by explaining compId, compName, and startTime, but it doesn't. The schema already documents itemId and itemName, so the description adds no value here.

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 verb 'add', the resource 'footage item', and the outcome 'as a layer', which is specific enough to distinguish from other layer-adding tools like add_solid_layer or add_text_layer. However, it does not explicitly mention the footage vs. other types differentiation beyond the name, so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It simply states what it does without any context on prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or when to prefer a sibling tool like add_null_layer or add_solid_layer.

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