modify_composition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the modification action but does not explain whether the tool mutates in place, returns a response, or requires specific permissions. It provides minimal insight beyond what the tool name implies.

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, but it is overly minimal. While brevity is valued, the lack of additional information (such as parameter relationships or return behavior) means the sentence does not earn its place by providing sufficient guidance.

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 8 parameters (0 required) and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how modifications apply. It does not address these. The absence of annotations further increases the need for a richer description, which is not provided.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional context (e.g., mutual exclusivity of compId and compName, or default behavior when fields are omitted). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Modify an existing composition' clearly states a specific verb-resource action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_composition' or 'delete_composition' by targeting modification of an existing entity. However, it lacks details that would further clarify purpose, such as the scope of modifications allowed.

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. For example, it does not explain that a composition must exist before modification, nor does it contrast with 'duplicate_composition' for copying. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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