mcp_aftereffects_applyEffectTemplate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool applies an effect template but doesn't explain what happens (e.g., whether it overwrites existing effects, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like modifying layer properties). This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of applying effects in After Effects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes (e.g., success/failure states, error handling) and doesn't address how this tool differs from siblings, leaving gaps for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify how 'customSettings' interact with templates or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 action ('apply') and target ('predefined effect template to a layer in After Effects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'mcp_aftereffects_applyEffect' or 'apply-effect-template', which appear to have similar functionality, missing explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mcp_aftereffects_applyEffect' or 'apply-effect-template'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an open project or specific layer types, leaving usage context unclear.

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