set-composition-properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Change' which implies mutation but does not disclose side effects such as whether unspecified properties are preserved, how duration changes affect existing keyframes, or whether changes are reversible. This lack of detail for a mutation tool is a significant gap.

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 two short sentences that get straight to the point: what changes and how to select the comp. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of obvious details.

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 that the tool has six optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and selection mechanism. It does not mention the width+height pairing constraint, but the schema covers this. While it lacks explicit side-effect warnings, the basic usage for an agent is sufficiently clear, though it could be more complete with behavioral notes.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all six parameters, including the constraint that width and height must be set together and that compName/compIndex are alternative selectors. The description repeats these settings and adds the 'or active comp' selection context, which slightly reinforces the schema but adds no new syntax or behavioral details. With 100% schema coverage, the description's redundancy is acceptable but not additive.

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 opens with 'Change a composition's settings' which clearly identifies the action (change) and resource (composition). It enumerates the editable settings (duration, frameRate, width+height) and specifies comp selection via compName/compIndex or active comp, distinguishing it from create-composition and layer-focused tools.

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 usage context, indicating what can be changed and how to select the target composition. It implies this is for modifying existing compositions rather than creating them, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to prefer other tools. Sibling tools like create-composition suggest the distinction, but the description itself lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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