ae_add_device_frame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the content layer is parented to the frame, implying they move together. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, destructive actions, or authorization needs. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that cover the main purpose and a usage tip. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core functionality and a best-use scenario, but omits details on several parameters and does not describe the return value or any limitations. For a moderate-complexity tool, this is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is only 38% (3 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the styles and parenting behavior, but it does not elaborate on parameters like comp, cornerRadius, frameColor, or shadow. Given the low coverage, the description should provide more parameter details to compensate.

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 wraps a layer in a mockup frame, listing three distinct styles (card, browser, phone). The verb 'wrap' and resource 'layer in a mockup frame' are specific, and the tool is well-differentiated from sibling tools like ae_add_effect or ae_add_layer_to_comp.

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 description explicitly recommends using it on 'footage/precomp layers (a screenshot or UI scene)', providing clear context. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the guidance is sufficient and distinguishes this tool from others.

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