Create Comp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation fact: the new comp is opened in the viewer, which is a UI state change. It says nothing about validation failures, whether the operation is undoable, or how it interacts with an already-open comp.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter mutation tool, but measured purely as conciseness and structure it is efficient.

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?

For a non-idempotent creation tool with five required, undescribed parameters and no output schema, the description omits units, constraints, project state requirements, and what is returned or changed. The safety annotations carry part of the burden, but the calling contract for the parameters is effectively absent.

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?

Six parameters, five required, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Units for fps and duration (seconds vs frames), pixel space for width/height, and the expected range/format of bg_color are all undocumented in both places, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: creates a composition, and adds the side effect of opening it in the viewer. It does not differentiate from adjacent tools like set_comp, duplicate_layer or get_comp, so an agent gets the what but not the boundary against siblings.

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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a project must already be open), and no reference to alternatives such as set_comp for editing an existing comp. The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.

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