enable_compositor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the exact property change (use_nodes=True on the scene), which is transparent about its primary effect. However, it does not mention potential side effects, such as whether enabling the compositor creates a default node tree, or whether it is idempotent. The description is truthful but incomplete in terms of broader 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a parenthetical implementation detail. Every word earns its place, with no superfluous content. It is an model of concise, clear tool documentation.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, a clear single action), the description is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke it. It covers the purpose and the key behavior. The only missing contextual elements are explicit usage timing and potential side effects, but these are minor for such a straightforward operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is fine since there are none. It focuses on the action itself rather than parameter details, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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's action: enabling the compositor, with a specific technical detail (use_nodes=True on scene). This is a unique action among sibling tools, which focus on compositor node operations rather than enabling the compositor itself. The verb 'enable' and resource 'compositor' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage as a prerequisite for compositor operations (since it enables the compositor), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines. The context of sibling compositor tools suggests the appropriate use case, but it is not directly communicated.

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