create_lower_third

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the action and result, omitting critical details such as whether the tool creates a new composition or layer, what 'animated text' entails (e.g., built-in preset animation), side effects on the project, performance implications, or required permissions. This is a severe gap for a tool with 13 parameters.

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, which is concise in length, but it is severely under-specified. It does not earn its place because it fails to convey essential information about the tool's behavior, parameters, or usage. Effective conciseness requires sufficient detail, not just brevity.

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 (13 parameters, 3 required, nested objects, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it modifies the project, the relationship between parameters (e.g., 'style' and 'position'), or the meaning of 'animated text'. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based solely on the provided description.

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 only 31% (4 of 13 parameters have descriptions), so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. However, the description adds no information about any parameter, leaving the agent to infer meanings from parameter names alone (e.g., 'style', 'animateIn', 'textColor' as an object). It fails to explain the enum options, optionality, or relationships between parameters.

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 'Create' and the resource 'a lower third graphic with animated text', which is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools like 'create_composition' or 'add_text_layer'. However, it does not differentiate from closely related tools like 'create_title_card' or 'create_text_animator', which could also produce animated text graphics. A more precise distinction would be beneficial.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., must have a composition open), or when not to use it. Without any usage guidelines, the agent lacks decision support for selecting this tool over similar creation tools listed as siblings.

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