ae_add_master_camera

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

The description discloses key behaviors (parenting only unparented layers, adding expression, optional drift) but lacks details on side effects like overwriting existing expressions or multiple runs. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and leaves gaps.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and action. It is front-loaded with the metaphor ('cinematic finisher'), though slightly long. No wasted words, but structure could be improved with bullet points.

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 description explains what the tool does but does not mention return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., comp must exist). For a tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'layers' (top-level unparented) and 'driftPx' (optional position drift), but these are already partially covered in the schema. No significant added meaning beyond schema descriptions.

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's action: creating a master null, parenting unparented layers, and adding a rotation expression. It specifies the resource (comp layers) and the effect (stitching). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the composite operation.

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 implies usage as a 'cinematic finisher' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like ae_parent_layer or ae_add_camera. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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