set_layer_quality

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Set the quality/sampling of a layer,' implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects on rendering, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies layer properties in a complex system like After Effects.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Set') and target. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent 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 complexity of modifying layer properties in a video editing context, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., mutability, errors), usage context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively in this domain.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (compId, layerIndex, quality) with an enum for quality. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'best' quality entails or how layer indexing works. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Set') and the target ('quality/sampling of a layer'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_layer_visibility' or 'set_layer_blend_mode' that modify different layer properties. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'modify_layer_properties' that might handle quality indirectly, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid composition and layer), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'modify_layer_properties' that might offer broader property changes. This lack of context leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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