xapp_illustratorToAE

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it mutates, and the description adds real specifics on top: the AI document is saved to disk as PDF-compatible and a new layered comp is created in AE. The disclosure that shapes:true is the default and rewrites every vector layer to native shape layers is the most valuable behavioral detail here. Missing: where output lands, what happens to an existing target comp, or behavior when AE isn't running.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the source→destination direction, followed by the ordered steps and the defaulted flag in a parenthetical. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 cross-app orchestration tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition covers the workflow but leaves prerequisites unstated and half the parameters unexplained. It is adequate to recognize the tool, not quite adequate to invoke it confidently without inspecting the schema.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It explains shapes with its default and semantics, and 'the active AI document' gestures at document, but aiPath and targetComp are never mentioned. The phrase 'active AI document' even leaves it ambiguous whether aiPath is required or ignored.

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 cross-app pipeline (save AI document, import into AE as a layered comp, convert vectors to shape layers) with the exact resource and end state. An agent knows what will exist afterward, though the definition never contrasts itself with sibling primitives like ae_importFile or ae_shapesFromVector that could accomplish parts of the same job.

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 implied by the name and workflow chain — this is the way to move Illustrator artwork into After Effects with editable shapes. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite statement (both apps running, an AI document open, an AE project open), and no pointer to alternatives.

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