ae_setEffectProperties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that supplying `time` converts the write into keyframe creation rather than a static value set — but says nothing about error behavior when the effect is missing, overwrite semantics, or undo.

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 compact clauses with the resource and the payload shape front-loaded. The phrase "With time, sets keyframes" is telegraphic enough to be slightly ambiguous, but nothing is padded.

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?

Six parameters with a nested free-form object, no output schema, and only 33% schema coverage — the description should explain the `effect` identifier format and `enabled` and what a call returns. Those gaps matter because misuse of `effect` (name vs. 1-based index) or of `time` silently converts a value set into keyframes.

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% (only `layer` and `compositionName` are documented). The description compensates for `properties` by spelling out the {paramNameOrIndex: value} shape and for `time` by explaining the keyframe side effect, but leaves `effect` (string vs. integer) and `enabled` completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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+resource ("set parameters of an effect") and scopes it with "already on a layer", which implicitly separates it from ae_addEffect. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent still has to infer whether ae_setEffectKeyframe or ae_setProperty is the better fit for some cases.

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?

"Effect already on a layer" implies the prerequisite that the effect must exist first, and "With time, sets keyframes" signals when the time parameter changes behavior. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. ae_setEffectKeyframe / ae_setKeyframe / ae_setProperty, and no mention of ae_listEffects for discovering the effect identifier.

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