resolve_add_fusion_comp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a mutation ('add') but does not disclose whether this replaces an existing Fusion composition, whether it requires a supported clip type, what side effects it has on the timeline, or whether it is undoable. For a mutating tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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 a specific verb and object. The key scoping condition ('at the playhead') appears early, and there is no filler. This is appropriately concise.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, a short description could suffice, but several operational questions remain: What happens when no clip is at the playhead? Does it create a new Fusion comp or open an editor? Is there a prerequisite timeline page? These gaps make it incomplete for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to define. The description correctly implies the tool operates on the current clip at the playhead without additional inputs. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no parameter information is needed.

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?

States a specific action – adding a Fusion composition – and a precise target: the clip at the playhead. It is clearly distinct from siblings like resolve_get_fusion_comps or resolve_get_fusion_tools, which inspect existing comps, and from creation tools like resolve_insert_title. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing. The description implies usage through the verb 'add' and the positional condition 'at the playhead', but it does not instruct the agent to verify a clip is present or to consider competing tools like resolve_insert_title. This is implied usage, not clear guidance.

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