add_text_overlay

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait beyond the annotations: calling this operation will not work because Premiere's supported scripting API cannot create caption clips from raw text. This is far more informative than the generic boolean annotations and prevents the agent from attempting a doomed call.

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 extremely compact, front-loads the key word 'Unavailable', and every clause earns its place by either explaining the limitation or providing a concrete alternative. There is no redundant or boilerplate text.

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 tool whose main purpose is to prevent misuse, the description is complete: it states the technical limitation and gives two actionable alternatives. The absence of an output schema or return-format discussion is acceptable because the tool is explicitly unavailable rather than a functioning operation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the description does not need to repeat their meaning. The description adds no parameter-level nuance, but it also doesn't conflict with the schema; it simply renders the parameters moot by declaring the operation unavailable.

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 immediately and unambiguously states that direct raw-text caption creation is unsupported, which is the core purpose of this tool entry. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling create_caption_track and names MOGRT/PNG overlays as the path for title graphics.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: the tool is unavailable for raw text captions. It then prescribes the correct alternative workflows: import an .srt/.vtt and use create_caption_track, or use a MOGRT/PNG overlay for title graphics.

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