ae_delete_composition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses irreversibility with 'permanently', which is important for a destructive operation, but it does not mention undo behavior, prerequisites, or consequences for project references.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the irreversibility, the action, the resource, and the scope.

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 simple one-parameter destructive operation, the description plus schema provide enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. It lacks edge-case detail such as behavior when the composition is not found, but the operation's low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 schema describes the sole parameter as 'Composition name to delete' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles the semantics.

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 states a specific action (permanently delete), a specific resource (composition), and the scope (from the project). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools such as ae_delete_layer and ae_delete_project_item.

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 use case is implied: use this when the agent needs to remove a composition from the project. However, it does not explicitly call out alternatives or conditions, such as using ae_delete_layer for layers or ae_delete_project_item for generic project items.

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