Run any tool

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the call gets the same validation, permission checks, change report and activity log as a direct invocation, and malformed arguments return an error enumerating them. It does not restate the destructive/openWorld hints or warn that destructive consequences are inherited from the target tool, which is the one behavioral nuance an agent would still have to infer.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then discovery, then the equivalence guarantee, then the exclusions. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct instruction.

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 generic dispatcher with a free-form nested args object and no output schema, it covers discovery, error behavior, and parity with direct invocation well. The return shape (presumably the target tool's result) and any depth/recursion limits are left implicit.

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% and both parameters are described in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does point to ae_tools {describe} for resolving the free-form args object, which is useful routing but not semantic detail about the arguments themselves.

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 — run any After Effects tool by name with its arguments — and immediately scopes it to tools listed by ae_tools that aren't loaded in the chat. An agent can distinguish it from ae_batch and the direct per-tool siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (tools not loaded in this chat), explicit when-not-to-use ("Tools loaded in this chat don't need it: call them directly"), and names the discovery path ae_tools {describe: [name]} to obtain the target parameters. Both the positive and negative routing decisions are spelled out.

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