place_mogrt_with_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real value: it discloses that the result is a copy of the template (non-destructive), that the copy renders like a normal template, and that slots sharing one image in the template change together — a side effect an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of stating where the copy lands or what is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler; the copy semantics and shared-slot caveat each add distinct information. Nothing here can be cut without losing meaning.

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 9-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: how the required start and trackIndex place the instance, how duration defaults, and what is returned (the generated template name implied by 'label'). It explains the concept well but not enough to invoke it correctly without trial and error.

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 only 56%, and key parameters like start, trackIndex, and duration have no schema description and no mention in the description, so their semantics are left to the agent's guess. The description does clarify 'replacements' as Media Replacement slots and 'properties' as including text, but that covers only part of a 9-parameter tool with mutually exclusive input paths (mogrtPath vs library/graphic).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: place an After Effects .mogrt or library graphic with your own images into Media Replacement slots, plus text setting. This is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does, though it never names the nearby siblings (replace_mogrt_media, import_mogrt, import_library_graphic) that an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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 implies a use case ('with your own images in its Media Replacement slots') but never says when to choose this over replace_mogrt_media or set_mogrt_property, nor what prerequisites exist. The non-destructive 'builds a copy' line hints at the distinction, but it is not framed as guidance, so an agent has no explicit routing signal.

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