reorder_layerChange a layer's stacking order in After Effects by moving it to the top or bottom, shifting it up or down, or placing it before or after a specific layer.
Change a layer's stacking order. Pass exactly one of: to, index (1 = top), before_layer_id, after_layer_id. Before means above in the stack.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| layer_id | Yes | ||
| after_layer_id | No | ||
| before_layer_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a mutating, non-idempotent, destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful ordering semantics ('Before means above in the stack') and the mutual-exclusivity rule, but says nothing about required permissions, failure modes, or what a bad combination returns.
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?
Two tight sentences, with the core action and the parameter-exclusivity rule front-loaded. No filler and no redundancy.
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 mutating tool whose destructive/non-idempotent profile is already given by annotations, the description supplies the parameter semantics and ordering convention an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain (enum meanings in 'to', no error behavior), and no output schema is needed.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does so well: it names all four optional parameters, clarifies the 'exactly one' constraint the schema cannot express, and defines index=1 as top and the before/after orientation. It stops short of explaining the enum values of 'to' or the meaning of layer_id.
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 ('Change a layer's stacking order'), which is unambiguous and clearly separable from siblings like set_layer, add_layer, and duplicate_layer. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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 mutual-exclusivity rule ('Pass exactly one of...') is a genuine usage constraint, but the description never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as set_layer or what preconditions apply. Usage is implied rather than framed against siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.