Run a menu command

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the exact-match constraint, which is useful, but does not describe failure behavior or side effects beyond 'execute'.

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?

Two tight sentences deliver the core action, purpose, examples, and a critical constraint. No filler; the most important usage caveat is front-loaded near the purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, valid examples, and matching constraint. It could mention how to discover valid menu names or what happens on an unmatched command, but the low complexity makes it reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by insisting 'Names must match the menu exactly' and providing valid examples, which helps an agent format the single 'command' parameter correctly.

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 action and resource: 'Execute an After Effects menu command by name,' with concrete examples ('Auto-Orient', 'Fit to Comp', 'Purge All Memory'). It also distinguishes itself from scripting-API tools by noting it is for things with no scripting API, setting it apart from siblings like ae_run_script.

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?

Provides clear context: use when there is no scripting API, with illustrative examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context strongly implies the boundary against scripting-based tools.

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