ae_modify_composition

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a mutating operation on an existing composition and specifies which properties change. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as how changing dimensions or duration may affect existing layers, or whether changes are reversible.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It opens with the verb and target, then parenthetically lists the exact settings, making the scope immediately obvious to an agent scanning the description.

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 is simple, the schema covers all parameters, and the description states the operation and target. It could mention the return value or any validation constraints, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly among the many sibling composition tools.

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%, so the schema fully documents each parameter, including units and role (e.g., 'New width in pixels', 'New duration in seconds'). The description merely lists the parameter names again without adding clarifying constraints or usage nuances beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Modify') and resource ('settings of an existing composition'), and enumerates the exact settings affected (width, height, duration, frame rate, pixel aspect). It clearly distinguishes from creation tools like ae_create_composition and read tools like ae_get_composition_settings by emphasizing 'existing composition' and 'modify'.

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 implies appropriate usage: when an existing composition's basic settings need changing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough, especially compared to sibling tools that create compositions or change specific settings like background color or motion blur.

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