Move an After Effects layer to a specific index, top/bottom position, or above/below another layer in a composition.
After Effects: move a layer to index, or to top/bottom, or above/below another layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| above | No | Layer name or 1-based index. | |
| below | No | Layer name or 1-based index. | |
| layer | Yes | Layer name or 1-based index. | |
| toIndex | No | ||
| position | 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 readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if multiple targeting parameters are supplied, whether index shifts affect other layers, or whether the operation is applied to the active comp by default.
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 compact sentence with the resource and modes front-loaded; no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting precedence rules, but nothing written is wasted.
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 6 params, one required, and no output schema, the description should at least state how the targeting parameters combine and whether a return value (e.g., new index) is produced. It covers the 'what' adequately but leaves the operational edge cases open.
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% and 'toIndex' is undocumented entirely. The description merely restates the parameter options in prose without clarifying precedence or mutual exclusivity between 'above', 'below', 'toIndex', and 'position' — the single most important ambiguity in this 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 ('move a layer') and resource, and enumerates the four target modes (index, top/bottom, above/below). An agent can tell this reorders z-order rather than parenting or aligning, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 implies usage by listing the positional modes, but never says when to choose one mode over another or that the modes are mutually exclusive. It also gives no prerequisites (e.g., which comp, whether the layer must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.