create-composition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new composition but doesn't mention default behavior (e.g., default duration/frameRate if omitted) or whether it overrides an existing comp. The schema provides defaults for some parameters, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. Since creation tools are generally non-destructive (new resource), the lack of warning is acceptable, but the description could mention that existing comps are not affected.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Create') and resource ('a new composition'), making it immediately clear. Every word serves a purpose, and it is neither verbose nor under-specified.

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 creation tool with a rich schema (7 parameters, all documented), the description doesn't need to explain return values (no output schema). It could mention that the composition is added to the project panel or the current project, but this is implied by 'in After Effects.' The lack of annotations and output schema lowers the burden, but the description could be a bit more explicit about the context (e.g., the composition is created in the active project). Overall, it is minimally complete but not exceptional.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description's phrase 'specified parameters' is generic. Consequently, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema 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 the verb ('Create') and resource ('a new composition in After Effects'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools explicitly, but siblings like 'create-adjustment-layer' are different enough that no confusion is likely. A more specific mention of parameters like width/height/duration would strengthen it, but the current wording is adequate.

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 gives the context ('Create a new composition in After Effects') but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It implies that this is the go-to tool for creating comps, especially since siblings don't include another composition creator. However, no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, making it minimally adequate.

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