Aligns After Effects layers to composition edges or center using visual bounds, with optional pixel margin and anchor-point awareness.
After Effects: align layers to the comp — left, hCenter, right, top, vCenter, bottom, center — with margin px (uses visual bounds, respects anchor point).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| align | Yes | ||
| layers | Yes | Layer names or 1-based indexes. | |
| margin | No | ||
| compositionName | No | Comp name; omit to use the active comp. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so mutation-without-destruction is already established. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: alignment is computed from visual bounds rather than bounding boxes, and the anchor point is respected, which changes the resulting pixel positions. It does not mention undo behavior or whether effects/masks shift with the layer.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the application and action, with the mode list and behavioral caveat packed in at no wasted length. Nothing is redundant.
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 non-destructive mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers modes, units, and the visual-bounds/anchor semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. Error handling for invalid layer names and the exact effect on transform keyframes remain unexplained.
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 50%: layers and compositionName are self-documented in the schema. The description compensates partially by giving the margin unit (px) and restating the align modes, but it leaves margin's default value and whether it applies to all edges unspecified, so it does not fully close the gap.
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 (align) and resource (layers to the comp), then enumerates every supported alignment mode. It is unmistakably distinct from adjacent transform tools like ae_setTransform or ae_sequenceLayers.
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?
Usage is implied by the alignment vocabulary, but the description never says when to prefer this over positioning layers manually with ae_setTransform, nor does it state prerequisites such as layers needing to be selected or in the same comp. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.