Is the Fallacy of Composition a Fallacy of Ambiguity or a Fallacy of Insufficiency?

I have been experiencing difficulty understanding the classification of the fallacy of composition as a fallacy of ambiguity. To explain, I have read that there exist loose categories for informal fallacies: e.g. Fallacies of Irrelevance or Relevance, Fallacies of Insufficiency or sufficiency, and Fallacies of Ambiguity or Clarity.

The source of my confusion is why the fallacy of composition is classified as a fallacy of ambiguity or clarity. It does not seem to be reliant on a semantic misunderstanding but an incorrect belief that merely because a certain property of a part of a whole exist the whole must therefore have the property of its parts. This would seem to be a matter of sufficiency not ambiguity. Since it is not sufficient to believe or say that merely because property of part of a whole exists that the whole must therefore have that property. Forgive me if my explain is confusing. I simply wish to know if I'm misunderstanding the fallacy or if my source miscategorized the fallacy. Thank you in advance.