delete_composition

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether deletion is permanent, if it triggers cascading effects (e.g., removing layers or referenced footage), or if confirmation is needed. The simple phrase 'Delete a composition' is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely short (three words), which is concise but under-informative for a delete operation. It lacks necessary structure like a purpose statement or usage hints, making it borderline too brief to be useful beyond the tool's name.

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 (deletion can have irreversible effects) and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain return behavior (e.g., success confirmation), error scenarios, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

Both parameters are described in the input schema (compId and compName), and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra context about parameter relationships (e.g., whether both are needed or they are alternatives), but the schema already provides basic meaning.

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 states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'composition', which clearly conveys the core action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'duplicate_composition' or 'modify_composition' that also act on compositions. It is minimally adequate but lacks specificity to help the agent differentiate.

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 whether deletion is reversible, if there are prerequisites (e.g., composition must exist), or what conflicts may arise. There is no context about when not to use it, leaving the agent to guess.

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