add_expression_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but omits critical details: side effects (e.g., does it modify the layer's properties?), required permissions, state changes, or whether the layer must already have an expression. The agent cannot infer behavioral traits from this minimal text.

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 with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is too minimal to be effective; it lacks structure (e.g., no framing of when or how to use) and does not earn its place by providing necessary context. It is acceptable but not optimally structured.

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's complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter meanings, return values, required preconditions, or how this tool fits into a workflow. The agent has insufficient information 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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning all 7 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter explanations whatsoever. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and the enum for 'controlType', which is insufficient for correct invocation. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the 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 'Add an expression control effect to a layer' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_expression' (which sets an expression on a property) and 'apply_effect' (general effect application). However, it does not elaborate on what an expression control effect is, leaving some ambiguity about its exact purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'apply_effect' or 'set_expression'. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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