createAlignedLyricLayers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It establishes that this is a mutating, layer-creating operation inside a live comp, but says nothing about whether existing aligned layers are destroyed or duplicated on re-align, whether the run requires the bridge/plugin to be live, expected runtime for MMS alignment, or whether the result is undoable.

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 dense sentence with the action and outcome front-loaded and no filler. It is packed with domain jargon (MMS-Align, CTC-Segmentation) that may cost some readers, but every clause adds information.

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 ten-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool with no output schema, the description establishes the pipeline and output artifact but omits what is returned (layer names, count, timing data), what happens when neither lyricsText nor lrcFilePath is supplied, and what state the comp is left in. Adequate as an introduction, incomplete as the sole documentation.

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 all ten parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only indirectly touches parameters by mentioning audio, lyrics, 3D layers, and beat-locked timing, without adding syntax, format, or precedence rules beyond the schema.

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 names a specific pipeline (MMS-Align / CTC-Segmentation) and a concrete output artifact (3D kinetic typography text layers in the After Effects composition) with beat-locked pop/fade animations. That is far more specific than the name alone. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like alignLyricsWithMMS or applyBeatMarkersToComp, which sound like subsets of this same pipeline.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion or routing to alternatives, even though alignLyricsWithMMS and applyBeatMarkersToComp cover overlapping ground. The parenthetical '(or re-align)' hints that the tool also re-processes already-created layers, but the agent must infer that the tool creates layers when none exist and overwrites when they do.

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