delete_composition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Delete') without disclosing behavioral traits like permanence, permissions required, error conditions, or what happens to dependent layers. It mentions a confirmation parameter in the schema but not in the description, leaving critical safety aspects unclear.

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 with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward deletion tool.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on consequences, success/failure behavior, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., what happens to layers in the composition). Given the complexity and risk, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (compId and confirmDelete). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying deletion targets a composition, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a composition from the project'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_layer' or 'delete_mask' by specifying compositions, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'duplicate_composition' or 'modify_composition' beyond the action difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_layer' or 'duplicate_composition', nor are prerequisites or contextual constraints mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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