ae_add_trim_path

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: adds trim paths, animates by default, adds stroke if missing. However, it does not disclose whether existing trim paths or strokes are overwritten, or what happens if the layer is not a shape.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the main action and includes relevant context (best on ae_create_shape shapes). No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is not fully complete. It explains the core effect and animation but omits details about time range parameters (startTime, endTime) and the stroke color format, which are important for 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 description coverage is low (25%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'drawOn' (by default animate) and 'addStroke' (adds stroke first if none) parameters, but does not explain 'startTime', 'endTime', 'comp', 'strokeColor', or 'strokeWidth'. The schema itself lacks descriptions for many parameters.

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: 'Add Trim Paths to a shape layer and animate it so the stroke draws on.' It specifies the resource (shape layer), the verb (add trim paths and animate), and the scope (by default animate, add stroke if none). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ae_add_effect or ae_animate_transform.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Best on shapes made by ae_create_shape.' This implies when to use the tool for optimal results, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like using ae_add_effect with trim paths manually.

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