Saves the active After Effects project or saves it to a specified path, with optional timestamped backups and incremental versions.
After Effects: save the project (Ctrl+S), or Save As when path is given. backup:true also writes a timestamped copy into a "Backups" folder next to the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| backup | No | ||
| incremental | No | Increment and Save (_01, _02 ...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: path triggers Save As, backup:true creates a timestamped copy in a 'Backups' folder, and Ctrl+S maps to the basic save. It does not disclose overwrite behavior or what is returned, but the mutation and side-effect profile are substantially clearer than the annotations alone.
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?
Two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The primary save behavior is front-loaded, followed by the path mode and backup side effect.
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 save tool with no output schema, the description covers the main modes and the backup side effect adequately. It omits the incremental mode, though that is covered by the parameter's schema description, and it does not describe overwrite or return behavior.
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 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It does so for path (Save As behavior) and backup (timestamped copy location), while incremental is documented in the schema itself as 'Increment and Save (_01, _02 ...)'.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('save the project') for After Effects, and explicitly distinguishes ordinary save from Save As based on the path parameter. The app prefix also separates it from sibling save tools in Premiere, Photoshop, and Illustrator.
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?
It clearly explains the two primary invocation modes: save with no path, or Save As when path is given, and states what backup:true does. It does not explicitly compare against alternative save tools, but the After Effects scoping makes the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.