ae_set_layer

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds two genuinely useful facts: keyframe-writing via 'time' and atomicity ('One undo step'). However it omits permission requirements, whether omitted fields are preserved, and any return/error behavior for a 29-param mutation.

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?

Front-loaded correctly with the verb and the field list, and the keyframe/undo hints come last. But it is one long sentence stuffed with parenthetical sub-clauses, which is dense without being structurally scannable.

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 29-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete: it never mentions comp scoping, matte behavior, or motion blur, all of which are real parameters. The 'one undo step' note is the strongest completeness contribution.

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 59% (moderate). The description enumerates roughly 20 of 29 fields, adding a grouping ('text' sub-fields) that helps, but it omits motionBlur, trackMatte, trackMatteType, matteVisible, comp, and the timing fields. It neither compresses the uncovered half nor clarifies ambiguous ones beyond the schema.

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 ('Change') plus the resource ('layer settings and transform') and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent knows this is the catch-all layer mutation tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ae_set_property or ae_set_keyframes, which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Pass time to write keyframes instead of static values' gives one concrete usage rule, but there is no when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as ae_set_keyframes, ae_set_property, or ae_add_text_animator despite clear overlap. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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