Assigns a parent layer to one or more After Effects layers, or removes parenting by setting parent to null; optionally specify the composition.
After Effects: parent layer(s) to a parent layer (or unparent with parent null).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | Yes | ||
| parent | Yes | Layer name or 1-based index. | |
| 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, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the unparent behavior via null, which is real value, but it omits that parenting alters transform inheritance, whether multiple layers are processed atomically, and what happens on failure.
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 no filler, and the primary action precedes the escape hatch. It is arguably too compressed, bundling the '(s)' plural ambiguity into the same clause.
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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the core action and the null case. It stops short of describing the result of the operation or any comp-scoping caveats an agent would want before calling.
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 67%; the schema documents layer index/name and the active-comp fallback for compositionName. The description's one contribution is defining parent=null as unparent, which the schema does not state — useful, but it leaves the layer(s) array batching behavior and compositionName behavior to the schema.
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 ('parent') and resource ('layer(s)') plus the inverse operation (unparent with parent null), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like ae_linkProperties or ae_reorderLayer. It never explicitly says how it differs from property-linking, so not a 5.
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 'parent null' clause tells the agent how to undo parenting, which is a genuine usage hint. But there is no guidance on when to use this instead of ae_linkProperties, or any prerequisites (e.g., both layers must be in the same comp).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.