compositor.configure

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

Annotations only state negative facts (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, not open-world). The description adds 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and session-policy requirements, but it never discloses what changes the tool makes to the scene, what preconditions exist, or what effect the 'glare' and 'exposure' parameters have. No contradiction with annotations, but insufficient behavioral context.

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 short, but brevity is achieved by omitting functional content. Each clause is either a restatement of the title or generic policy/risk metadata. It reads like an internal registry entry rather than a tool explanation, so the sentences do not earn their place.

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 tool with six parameters, an output schema, and many compositor-related siblings, this description is operationally incomplete. It does not describe the operation, the effect on Blender's compositor, parameter semantics, or when to prefer it over sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool from the provided text.

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 50%, and the two domain parameters (glare, exposure) have no descriptions. The tool description adds no explanation of what these parameters control, what values are valid, or how they interact. An agent is left entirely to guess from names and types.

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 mostly restates the command name ('PartMe Blender Harness command `compositor.configure`') and only adds risk/maturity metadata. It does not say what configuring the compositor actually does, such as setting glare or exposure effects, so an agent cannot infer the tool's function from the description.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_compositor_add_file_output, blender_compositor_create_strip_group, or blender_compositor_inspect. The only usage-related sentence, 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply,' is generic policy rather than decision guidance.

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