fusion_lua

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains that `comp` is the composition and shows a modification example, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, reversibility, permissions, or error handling.

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 concise with three short paragraphs: purpose, rationale, and example. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though a slightly more structured breakdown (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the core use case and provides a helpful example. However, it lacks details on return values, error behavior, or security considerations, which are relevant for executing arbitrary Lua code.

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%, yet the description only adds meaning for the `script` parameter via the example. The optional parameters `comp_name` and `item_handle` are not explained at all, leaving gaps.

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 tool runs Lua inside a Fusion comp for building/editing node graphs, contrasting with the Python API. The example reinforces the purpose, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like fusion_comp_* and fusion_page_lua.

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?

It explicitly says node-level work goes through here because the Python API cannot reach nodes, providing a clear use case. However, it doesn't mention alternatives like fusion_page_lua or when not to use this tool.

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