ae_create_comp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors beyond the schema: the viewer-opening side effect and that the operation costs exactly 'one undo step', which signals atomicity. However, it omits failure modes (what happens if no project is open), permission/auth needs, and any return-value behavior.

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 clause plus one short parenthetical and a fragment; no sentence is wasted and the core action is stated first.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and the viewer side effect but leaves gaps around return values (does it return a comp ID?) and preconditions. It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 78%, so the schema documents most parameters (width, height, duration, frameRate, bgColor, pixelAspect, motionBlur) on its own. The description adds meaning only for the undocumented 'open' parameter, clarifying that it controls whether the new comp is opened in the viewer. That is a genuine but narrow addition over the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Create') plus resource ('composition'), clearly distinct from siblings such as ae_set_comp, ae_create_layer, and ae_open_project. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 only usage guidance is implicit via the conditional 'unless open: false', which tells the agent how to suppress the viewer side effect. There is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must already be open) or when to prefer this over ae_set_comp for modifying an existing comp.

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