mcp-after-effects

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 mentions setting or removing expressions but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, error handling, or the effect on existing keyframes. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and integration with sibling tools. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing contextual information.

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 four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain expression syntax or property constraints further). This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Set or remove') and target ('expression for a specific layer property'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'setLayerKeyframe' by focusing on expressions rather than keyframes. However, it doesn't specify the context (e.g., After Effects project) beyond what the schema implies.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'setLayerKeyframe' or 'apply-effect' is provided. The description implies usage for expression management but lacks context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where this is preferred over other tools.

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