ae_setLayerSwitches

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

Annotations establish that this is a non-readOnly but non-destructive mutation, yet the description never says whether unspecified switches are left untouched, whether the operation is undoable, or whether all listed layers receive identical values. It also lumps non-switch attributes (name, comment, timeRemap) under "switches" without explanation, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler prose, which is good, but the bulk of it is a redundant dump of schema keys. The enumeration buys little beyond what the input schema already shows, and it includes the nonexistent timeRemap.

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 an 18-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and near-zero schema description coverage, the description leaves major gaps: multi-layer semantics, partial-update behavior, return value, and the role of compositionName are all missing. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this correctly without opening the schema and guessing.

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 11%, so the description should compensate, but it mostly just re-lists property names already visible in the schema. It does add the useful label range (0-16) and quality values, but it names a timeRemap parameter that does not exist in the schema and omits compositionName, which does. The phantom parameter actively misleads.

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 and resource ("set layer switches" in After Effects) and enumerates the switches, so an agent knows exactly what class of mutation this performs. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like ae_setMotionBlur or ae_setTransform, which cover overlapping ground, so it falls short of 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 description contains no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as ae_setMotionBlur for the motion-blur switch. The agent must infer usage purely from the parameter list.

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