add_text_overlay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Adds' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is destructive to existing content, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on failure. It mentions the tool's basic function but lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether the overlay persists after export. The description covers basic purpose but lacks completeness for effective agent use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it implies the text serves as a 'title' overlay, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 action ('adds a text layer') and target resource ('over the video timeline'), with 'title' in parentheses providing additional context about the type of text overlay. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_shape' or 'add_transition' by specifying text content, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_shape' for graphical elements or other text-related tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing sequence) or contextual constraints for effective use.

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