add_text_layer

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only states that a text layer is added, with no information on side effects (e.g., does it affect existing layers?), return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. The agent cannot determine whether this operation is safe, reversible, or requires specific authorization.

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 wasted words, aligning well with conciseness expectations. However, for a tool with 9 parameters and nested objects, this brevity sacrifices informative value. A slightly expanded description (e.g., noting optional composition targeting) would improve structure without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to address key contextual gaps: how the composition is identified, behavior when compId/compName are omitted, color format, or return details. This inadequacy makes it difficult for an agent to use the tool effectively without external knowledge.

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 78%, and the tool description adds no parameter-level context beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain the 'color' object structure, the meaning of 'justification' values, or how 'compId' vs. 'compName' target the composition. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no value over schema, but 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 clearly states the action 'Add a text layer' and the target 'composition', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_solid_layer' or 'add_shape_layer'. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related 'add_text_layer_advanced' sibling, which could lead to ambiguity for the agent when choosing between basic and advanced text layer creation.

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, such as 'add_text_layer_advanced' or other layer-adding tools. There is no mention of preconditions (e.g., requires an active composition) or context for effective usage, leaving the agent without decision-support information.

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