add_text_overlay

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions the MOGRT requirement and the mapping of text fields, but does not reveal side effects such as importing a project item, potential failures, or what happens when the track or sequence is invalid. It lacks clarity on the operational impact beyond adding a layer.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide essential detail. Every clause contributes, and it avoids repetition of schema information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters, many of which have nuanced behavior (e.g., textPropertyName override, rollbackOnTextFailure), the description does not cover error cases, success criteria, or operational prerequisites beyond what the schema already states. It does not explain when to use the override or rollback parameters, nor the consequences of missing track or MOGRT. The absence of an output schema further increases the need for such 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mapping of text fields to AE components with a concrete example (e.g., Basic Lower Third) and stating 'Supports up to 4 text fields', which is not explicitly in the schema. This goes slightly beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Adds a text layer (title) over the video timeline.' It also specifies the resource (MOGRT template) and the capability of up to 4 text fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'apply_effect' or 'add_to_timeline', so it's not a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites beyond mentioning that a MOGRT path is required. It implies usage for text overlays but does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct users to sibling tools.

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