Add Title

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false); the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: Premiere-built templates get text baked into a verified copy because no writable text exists, After Effects templates are written by position and read back with enumerated verification outcomes (verified/mismatch/missing_property/committed_unverified), and the clip is trimmed to duration_seconds with length read back.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default, then branching by template kind. Every sentence carries information, though the verification-status enumeration is dense and could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the description covers the complex kind-dependent write/verify semantics that an agent could not infer. It is nearly complete for a 6-parameter mutation tool, missing only explicit placement interaction with existing tracks.

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 100% and the schema already documents every default, the text-vs-lines exclusivity, and the template/track/start/duration meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a marginal concrete example (a lower third's name and role for the ordered lines) and restates the default template, not enough to materially exceed 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('Add an on-screen title from plain text using a stock Essential Graphics template') and immediately scopes it to Premiere-shipped templates, which separates it from sibling tools like import_mogrt, add_text_overlay, and add_custom_metadata_field. An agent can pick this tool over its neighbors without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent to list_stock_titles to inspect templates/kind/line counts and to export_frame to confirm the render, and it distinguishes the two template kinds by behavior. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over add_text_overlay or import_mogrt, so the alternative-selection guidance is partial rather than complete.

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