Add Property

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it returns the new property path (no output schema exists) and that it unblocks later set_property calls, but it does not say whether calling it on an existing property errors or duplicates, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Appropriately short in word count, but the second sentence is a dense run-on that chains group_path, match_name, appended paths, and three example match names into one clause. A bulleted structure for the setup steps would make it far more scannable; as-is it is readable but not well organized.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical integration detail (return value feeds subsequent paths) and gives a concrete worked example, so an agent can act. Gaps remain around layer_id meaning and error/idempotency behavior, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does explain match_name by example ('ADBE Text Animator') and shows group_path as an AE match-name path array, but layer_id is never described and the format of the returned/consumed path is conveyed only through one hard-coded text-animator example.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Add a property or group') and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling set_property by stating it reaches targets 'set_property cannot reach until it exists.' The only fuzziness is that 'property or group' covers two distinct resource kinds, but the After Effects framing makes the intent recoverable.

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 clause about set_property implies the use case (the target must already exist for set_property, so use this first), but usage is left to inference rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not phrasing, no mention of what happens if the property already exists, and no guidance on ordering relative to other setup tools.

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