create-text-layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the auto-detection of direction and default alignment for RTL, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention behavior around composition selection, error handling, or side effects (e.g., whether it replaces existing layers). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers the unique feature (Arabic/RTL) and the practical 'works in any language' note without fluff.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, its primary differentiator, and compatibility. It doesn't explain return values or errors, but for a creation tool that's typically implicit. It's nearly complete for the target use case.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how `direction` interacts with `alignment` (auto-detection, forcing, default right-alignment for RTL) and by suggesting font families that support Arabic. This clarifies the most nuanced parameter relationships.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a text layer') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create-adjustment-layer or create-composition by highlighting full Arabic/RTL support. It immediately communicates the tool's unique value proposition.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a text layer is needed, especially for Arabic/RTL content. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing 'Works on After Effects in any language' implies broad applicability. Slight lack of explicit alternative guidance prevents a 5.

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