create_logo_reveal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create an animated logo reveal', implying mutation/creation, but fails to explain what the result is (new layer, new composition, modification of existing?), side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this brevity comes at the cost of essential detail. It is undersized; additional context on behavior and parameters would be warranted without being 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (including nested objects), no output schema, and performs a creation operation with likely side effects, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the overall workflow, return value, prerequisites, or how the 'logo reveal' is integrated into the project. Important context is missing for effective use.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema), the description should add meaning but does not—it contains zero parameter information. The agent must guess the semantics of 'compId', 'compName', 'duration', 'backgroundColor', and the distinction between 'logoItemId' and 'logoItemName'. The description adds no value beyond the sparse 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 'Create an animated logo reveal' provides a clear verb (create) and resource (animated logo reveal), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling creation tools like 'create_title_card', 'create_lower_third', or 'create_transition', which also create animations but for different assets. A more specific purpose statement would improve clarity.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'create_title_card' for titles), what prerequisites are needed (e.g., an existing composition or project), or what constraints apply. This leaves the agent without guidance on tool selection.

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