add_shape_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a path' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this creates a new path object, appends to existing paths, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a complex tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 maximally concise at 6 words, front-loading the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, and the structure is perfectly efficient for conveying the basic operation.

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?

For a complex tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address what happens after adding the path, what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it integrates with the broader After Effects context. The high parameter complexity demands more contextual information than provided.

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?

With 86% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the tool name's implication of 'path' being added. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how 'fillColor' and 'strokeColor' interact with the path, or clarify the 'groupName' parameter's role when optional.

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 'Add a path to a shape layer' clearly states the action (add) and target resource (path to shape layer), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_shape_layer' or 'modify_shape_path', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus creating a new shape layer or modifying an existing path.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to shapes, masks, and paths (like 'add_shape_layer', 'modify_shape_path', 'animate_mask_path'), the agent receives no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions from similar operations.

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