reduce_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool removes unused items, implying a destructive or modifying action, but does not explain what is considered 'unused', whether the action is reversible, or what items are affected (e.g., footage, compositions, layers). This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise with a single, clear phrase. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include the context that it affects the specified composition or project, but the brevity is otherwise effective.

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 (project cleanup with two parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what 'unused' means, which parameters are required, what happens after removal, or how to verify results. The lack of detail makes it insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the two parameters 'compId' and 'compName'. However, it provides no parameter-specific information, leaving the agent to guess their purpose (e.g., which project? which composition?). The description adds no value beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'unused items from project', indicating a cleanup/optimization action. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'delete_composition' or 'delete_layer' which delete specific items entirely, rather than removing unused ones. However, it does not specify what qualifies as 'unused' or the scope of removal, which slightly limits its specificity.

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 'delete_composition', 'organize_project_items', or 'collect_files'. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without context to decide appropriately.

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