ae_add_text_layer

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. It only restates the bare action and does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., nonexistent comp_name), where the layer lands in the layer stack, what font family is used, or whether the operation mutates and saves the project beyond the obvious. The core action is truthful, but behavioral context is essentially absent.

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?

A single declarative sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the verb and the object. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning, although the terseness does leave behavioral gaps that are penalized in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate — but it covers neither return values nor edge-case behavior. It also does not explain meaningful context such as default position (960, 540) relating to composition dimensions or what happens when the target composition does not exist. For a mutating tool with no annotation safety net, the provided context is thinner than an agent needs.

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% — all 8 parameters (text, color channels, font_size, position_x/y, comp_name) have schema descriptions with types, defaults, and ranges. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add') with a concrete resource ('a text layer') and destination ('to a composition'). The resource type clearly differentiates it from sibling add-tools like ae_add_solid_layer, ae_add_null_layer, ae_add_shape_layer, ae_add_camera, and ae_add_light.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named. The usage context is only implied: an agent needing to place text in a composition can infer this is the right tool, but nothing helps disambiguate among the many ae_add_* siblings.

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