Create kinetic text

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

Even though annotations already declare non-read-only and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: node hierarchy (Text TOP, LFO CHOP, Transform/Level nodes, Composite, Null), per-mode animation mechanics (flash vanishes rather than black, pulse breathes, slide scrolls), input compositing behavior with Select TOP, and rate binding to beat CHOP. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 lengthy but each sentence carries useful information—alternatives, mode mechanics, input handling, and return format. It is a single dense paragraph rather than structured bullets, but it is not padded or redundant.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (summary, JSON block with paths/controls/errors/warnings/preview). It covers node creation, source compositing, rate binding, alternative tools, and edge cases (no input_path), leaving no obvious gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; description adds practical guidance beyond the schema, such as binding rate to a beat CHOP for tempo sync, and clarifies mode behavior in prose. This elevates it above the baseline, though much of the detail is already present in 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 states a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('self-contained animated / kinetic typography layer'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming create_text_overlay for static captions and create_text_crawl for multi-line scrolling text.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use context (live-VJ lyric-flash effect) and names exact alternatives with conditions: 'for a static caption or title use create_text_overlay, and for multi-line scrolling tickers/credits rolls/typewriter reveals use create_text_crawl.' This gives clear guidance on choosing the correct tool.

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