replaceTextInComp

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this mutates layer text irreversibly, what happens when findText is omitted (only newText is required despite the tool being 'find and replace'), whether all matching layers or only the first are changed, or what occurs when no match is found.

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 sentence with the core action first and the use case scoped in parentheses. No wasted words.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the agent needs more than a one-liner: the fallback behavior for comp/layer resolution, the required-only newText oddity, and the mutation/reversibility profile are all unaddressed.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in structured data; the description adds little beyond 'across layers'. It does not clarify the interaction between compName/compIndex and layerName/layerIndex or that findText is effectively required for the replace behavior.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'find and replace text content across layers in a composition' — and adds a concrete use case (AE templates & MoGRTs). It is distinguishable from siblings like replaceFootage or setLayerExpression, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 parenthetical 'ideal for customizing AE templates & MoGRTs' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives for single-layer edits, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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