send_to_after_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that it records a handoff JSON (media file, source in/out, handles, timeline position, sequence size/fps, Motion transform) and returns an id, plus the downstream comp-matching and render-back behavior. It omits error cases, idempotency, and whether a handoff record persists, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose and return value are front-loaded, and the follow-up workflow follows logically. It is dense but each clause adds real routing value; the multi-step instructions push it slightly long, but nothing is wasted.

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 6-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what gets recorded, the returned id, and the entire round-trip lifecycle. Remaining gaps (id format, failure modes) are minor, so it is nearly complete.

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%, so all six parameters (including defaults like handles=1, videoTrack=0) are already documented. The description adds the framing that 'handles' and clip selection are recorded, but gives no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send one timeline clip to After Effects') and immediately clarifies scope ('one clip', 'for effects work'). It names the counterpart siblings (ae_do bridge, return_from_after_effects), so the agent can distinguish this tool's role in the pipeline.

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 gives an explicit multi-step workflow: call this, then ae_do bridge.from_premiere, then bridge.to_premiere, then return_from_after_effects. That is strong context, though it doesn't state when NOT to use it or what alternative exists for multi-clip handoff.

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