ae_set_layer_properties

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 that properties are set on a layer, but does not disclose whether unspecified properties are left untouched, whether this overwrites existing transforms, whether timing values are in seconds or frames, or whether any destructive side effects occur. The brief property list gives no insight into the operation's actual behavior beyond the fact that it mutates layer properties.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are stated first, followed by compact parameter examples. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly grouping timing parameters, but it remains appropriately sized and efficient for its 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?

This is a 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should provide substantial context. It only covers a subset of property units and omits how to identify the target layer/composition, whether partial updates are supported, what happens to unspecified properties, and the exact behavior of timing fields. The description is too sparse for an agent to reliably invoke this tool correctly in ambiguous cases.

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?

The description adds useful meaning for a few parameters: position is [x,y], scale is [x,y] percent, rotation is in degrees, and opacity is 0-100. However, schema description coverage is only 27%, and most parameters (name, enabled, inPoint, outPoint, startTime, parent_name, threeDLayer, comp_name, comp_index, layer_name, layer_index) are not meaningfully explained in the description. The 'timing' category is mentioned but not tied to inPoint/outPoint/startTime, so an agent is left to guess key units and semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set transform/timing/name/parent on a layer.' It lists the main property categories and gives examples (position, scale, rotation, opacity), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ae_set_keyframes or ae_set_expression, but the resource and categories are concrete enough to avoid major confusion.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, an agent cannot tell from the description whether to use this tool or ae_set_keyframes for timing-related changes, or how this relates to ae_create_layer or ae_get_layer. The description implies a use case but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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