ae_apply_preset

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the undo footprint ('One undo step'), implying the change is reversible, but says nothing about required file formats beyond the extension, failure modes (missing/incompatible preset), or interaction 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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the discovery hint and the undo note. Every clause carries information.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it does, where to get the preset, undo behavior) but omits error/edge-case behavior and whether a result or confirmation is returned. Adequate rather than thorough.

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%, so all three parameters (comp, path, layer) are already documented in the schema, including the omit-to-use-active-comp behavior. The description only echoes the .ffx path concept, adding no new syntax or constraint detail — the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Apply an animation preset (.ffx) to a layer') and explicitly scopes the action to a layer, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like ae_apply_effect or ae_copy_animation. It also names the related discovery tool, ae_list_presets.

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?

It gives clear routing advice: use ae_list_presets to find the preset path needed by this tool, which is exactly the prerequisite an agent needs. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. versus ae_apply_effect), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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