ae_import_3d_from_blender

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses key behaviors: verification runs first, a dedicated comp and layer are created, and a post-import capture frame is required. It does not discuss side effects like overwriting existing comps or the impact of skip_verify, but it provides substantial beyond-the-schema behavior.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds workflow behavior and the mandatory follow-up. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

The core workflow is captured well: import, verify, create comp/layer, then capture to confirm visibility. However, with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves several options unexplained. It is minimally adequate for a default call with just jobId, but incomplete for customizing or troubleshooting the import.

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 only 29%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It never explains comp_name, layer_name, frameRate, threeD, first_frame, or skip_verify; the closest link is 'Runs verify first' hinting at skip_verify, but that is indirect. Only jobId is meaningfully contextualized via 'finished Blender exchange job.'

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 names a specific action and resource: importing a finished Blender exchange job into After Effects as a transparent PNG sequence. It clearly differentiates this from generic import and Blender preparation/verification tools by specifying the output format and the fact that it creates a dedicated comp and layer.

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?

It states the input condition ('finished Blender exchange job'), notes that verification runs first, and mandates a follow-up ae_capture_frame call to prove visibility. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a perfect score, but the context is clear.

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