ae_duplicate_composition

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. 'Duplicate a composition' reveals the operation but says nothing about side effects (a new composition created alongside the original), error conditions (nonexistent comp_name, naming collisions), or what the tool returns. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 three-word description is undeniably concise and front-loads the key verb and resource. However, it is closer to under-specification than earned conciseness—it essentially restates the tool name and contributes no additional information that would justify its existence.

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 moderate-complexity mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent knows what to pass (from the schema) but not what to expect back, how failures are surfaced, or what state changes occur in the After Effects project. The schema covers inputs well but the description fails to cover the surrounding behavioral context.

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%: both comp_name and new_name are documented in the schema itself, including the 'Copy of <name>' default for new_name. The description adds no parameter information, but per the baseline rule, 3 is appropriate when the schema already 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 states a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('composition'), which clearly identifies the operation. Because the sibling set includes ae_duplicate_layer, naming the resource as 'composition' meaningfully distinguishes this tool. However, it lacks any scope qualifier or explicit sibling differentiation, so it stops short of the best examples.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ae_create_composition or ae_duplicate_layer. No prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection solely from the tool's name.

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