create_composition

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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't specify what happens after creation (e.g., whether the composition becomes active, if it's saved automatically, or what permissions are required). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or relationship to other composition tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a creation tool with no output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new composition in the current project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'duplicate_composition' or 'modify_composition', but the 'new' qualifier helps distinguish it from modification tools. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'in the current project', which implies a prerequisite of having an open project, but doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'duplicate_composition' or how it relates to other composition management tools. No explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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