add_text_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the text is burned-in (a visual overlay) but does not disclose whether this mutates the timeline, whether existing text layers are affected, what track requirements exist, or how rendering/output is impacted. For a mutating tool this is a notable 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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, and it fronts the core action and object. It is appropriately minimal in wording, though the brevity comes at the cost of substantive detail that other dimensions require.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine required inputs, preconditions, or behavioral side effects from this definition alone.

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 0%, and the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what track_id, timeline_in, timeline_out, or font_size represent, nor how they interact. Five parameters remain effectively undocumented, and the one-word gloss 'caption/title' does not compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('text layer') with a clarifying qualifier ('burned-in caption/title'), making the tool's function understandable at a glance. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like generate_captions or add_clip, so it misses the top 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_captions or add_clip. The agent must infer the intended use case from the name and a one-line description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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