ae_save_projectSave an After Effects project to its existing path, or pass an absolute path for Save As when saving to a new location.
Save the project. Pass path for Save As.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Optional absolute path to save the project to (Save As). If omitted, save to the existing path — errors if the project has never been saved. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, such as the error condition for unsaved projects and the Save As path behavior. It does not contradict the annotation and clarifies the tool's side effects adequately.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a precise pointer to the path parameter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 simple save operation with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and a destructive annotation, the description plus schema provide complete guidance. No output schema is needed for a save action, and the behavior is fully documented.
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 the schema description fully explains the path parameter, including Save As semantics and error behavior. The description adds no new meaning beyond a concise restatement, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool saves the project, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like export/import JSON by focusing on native project save, including the Save As nuance via path.
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 schema description provides clear guidance on when to omit path (existing save) versus provide path (Save As), including the error condition if never saved. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, keeping it just shy of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.