setCompositionProperties

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that properties are modified but says nothing about reversibility/undo, whether unspecified properties are preserved, whether changing width/height/duration affects existing layers or keyframes, or which composition is targeted when none is named. 'Modify' alone is thin for a mutation tool.

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 no filler, and the verb and affected resource lead the line. It is efficient, though a slightly longer treatment of scope and defaults would have been justified for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the headline capabilities but leaves gaps: it never mentions the compName selector (or the active-composition default), the pixelAspectRatio option, or what a caller should expect after resizing. It is adequate but not complete.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates a subset of the parameters (name, width/height, duration, framerate, bgColor) but omits compName and pixelAspectRatio and adds no format or unit detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb (Modify) plus the resource (an existing composition) and enumerates the editable attributes, so the agent immediately knows what the tool does. It fails to distinguish itself from the sibling renameComposition, which overlaps with the 'name' portion of this tool's scope, so it does not earn 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains renameComposition (name-only change) and setCompRenderer, yet the description never states when this broader property tool is preferred over the narrower one, nor any prerequisite such as needing an open project or active composition.

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