Duplicate an After Effects layer multiple times, optionally assigning a new name and offsetting each copy in time within a specified or active composition.
After Effects: duplicate a layer (count copies), optionally rename and offset each copy in time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| layer | Yes | Layer name or 1-based index. | |
| newName | No | ||
| timeOffset | 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 already declare this is a non-readonly but non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that multiple copies are created and may be renamed or time-offset, but says nothing about where the duplicates are placed in the stack, how names are generated, or what permissions/selection state is required.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the optional behaviours after; nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back (new layer indices/names, or the created copies) and how duplicates are positioned relative to the source. Those omissions are not fatal but leave the agent guessing about the result of the call.
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 only 40% (layer and compositionName are documented inline; count, newName and timeOffset are bare), yet the description gives each undocumented parameter a meaning: count = number of copies, newName = renaming, timeOffset = per-copy time shift. It does not state defaults for count or the units of timeOffset (seconds vs frames), which is the main remaining 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('duplicate a layer') in the After Effects namespace and enumerates the optional variations (count, rename, time offset), which lets an agent distinguish it from neighbouring layer tools like ae_reorderLayer, ae_trimLayer and ae_deleteLayer. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 only implied: the parenthetical '(count copies), optionally rename and offset each copy in time' hints at the duplication-and-offset workflow, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over ae_reorderLayer plus ae_setKeyframe/ae_trimLayer, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.