ae_precompose

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly but non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds one meaningful behavioral fact — moveAllAttributes defaults to true — which is useful since it determines whether effect/transform data travels with the layers. It does not say what happens to the source layers in the original comp or what the resulting comp placement is, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the notable default surfaced inline. No wasted clauses, though the parenthetical could be a separate clause for slightly better scannability.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and a mutation behavior, the description is only minimally sufficient. An agent knows broadly what will happen but not where the new comp lands, what the return value is, or how source layers are affected — details a mutating tool should surface when no output schema exists.

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%, so the description should compensate; it partially does by disclosing the moveAllAttributes default and clarifying 'open' is optional. However the required 'name' parameter is never explained, and 'compositionName'/'layers' semantics are left entirely 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 (precompose) and resource (layers into a new comp) within the After Effects namespace, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like ae_sequenceLayers or ae_selectLayers. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling, but the action 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as ae_sequenceLayers or ae_createComp, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that layers must be selected or exist in the active comp). The 'optionally open it' clause is the only contextual cue, and it describes an option rather than a usage condition.

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