ae_setProperty

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The one piece of genuinely additive behavior — that supplying 'time' turns the write into a keyframe — is disclosed and is important. Missing: what happens when the path is invalid, whether the call overwrites an existing expression, and whether the previous value is recoverable.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then the examples that do the real teaching. The category list ('shape content, text animator, layer style, material, camera option...') is dense but each item expands the mental model. Slightly run-on, but no filler sentences.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, an agent still lacks return behavior (does it echo the set value?), failure semantics for bad paths, and any note about needing the correct comp/layer resolved first. The examples cover the most error-prone input, which is the main thing it does right.

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% and 'property' and 'value' are bare strings/anyOf with no schema description, so the description has to compensate — and it does for the hardest parameter by giving three concrete path syntaxes. 'time = keyframe' also clarifies a parameter whose schema entry is just 'number'. Value typing (scalar vs array vs string for e.g. colors) is still undescribed.

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 ANY property by path') plus the full scope it covers: groups, effects, shape contents, text animators, layer styles, material, camera options. That breadth is what distinguishes it from narrower siblings like ae_setEffectProperties or ae_setTransform, and the path examples make the operation concrete.

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 word 'ANY' implies this is the general-purpose setter and that specialized siblings (ae_setEffectProperties, ae_setTransform, ae_setKeyframe) are conveniences, but that routing is never stated. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites (layer must be selected/active comp, property must exist) are given.

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