Convert an Illustrator or vector footage layer in After Effects into native, editable shape layers so vector artwork can be animated and edited as shapes.
After Effects: convert an Illustrator/vector footage layer into native editable shape layers (Create Shapes from Vector Layer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | Yes | Layer name or 1-based index. | |
| 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 this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, closed-world operation, and 'convert' is consistent with that. The description adds the useful outcome detail that the result is 'native editable shape layers' (plural, so likely multiple new layers), but it never says what happens to the original footage layer, whether the operation is undoable, or how it interacts with the current selection.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the app prefix, the verb, the source, the target, and the menu command alias. Nothing is redundant.
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 two-parameter, low-complexity conversion with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description states the outcome clearly enough to call the tool. The only real gap is the precondition that the layer must be Illustrator/vector footage, which is a prerequisite an agent could trip over.
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 100%, with 'layer' (name or 1-based index) and 'compositionName' (omit for active comp) both fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about which layer forms are accepted (must be vector footage) — the one semantic detail that would actually matter — so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb ('convert') and both the source (Illustrator/vector footage layer) and the result (native editable shape layers), plus the exact After Effects menu command. An agent can distinguish it from ae_addShapeLayer, which creates a fresh shape layer rather than converting existing footage, though the description never states that contrast 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?
Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that the target layer has to be imported vector footage and already exist in a comp. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention that ae_importFile (or xapp_illustratorToAE) must run first to get the vector footage in.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.