Render an overlay and place it in one step

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It does state the key behavior: rendering a transparent overlay and adding it to the project. However, it lacks details about side effects, reversibility, or whether existing overlays are modified. This is a moderate disclosure but with clear gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key alternative. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant 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?

With 13 parameters, a rich schema, and no output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: it names the operation, the project mutation, and the alternative tool. It omits error handling or explicit side-effect warnings, but the schema covers parameter details and the purpose is clear, making it adequate.

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 85%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema includes defaults and enum explanations, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 renders an overlay and adds it to the project at a specific time. It distinguishes itself from the sibling render_overlay by noting the common case for using render_overlay separately, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides a usage guideline: use render_overlay separately when the same graphic is reused across projects. This gives a clear when-not-to-use scenario and implies compose_overlay is for one-off overlays, effectively covering the main alternative.

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