ae_template

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is rendered, that the actual comp creation happens inside a different MCP (ae_fx_templates folder of the OPEN project), what that call returns (name, size, fps, frames), that save_as writes the .aep needed by aerender, and that AE caches by comp name so each tuning attempt needs a fresh name.

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?

The scoping statement and template catalog are front-loaded, and the 'Then:' workflow is easy to follow. It is information-dense and every sentence adds something, though the long template list and inline parentheticals make it slightly run-on rather than tightly structured.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and only 3 mostly-undocumented parameters, the description supplies what an agent needs: purpose, template options, parameter behavior, the returned value's shape, and the follow-up calls. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing except the unexplained out_dir.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains name (empty lists templates; otherwise one of the enumerated templates) and the structure of params (overrides template defaults; comp= names the comp; save_as= persists the .aep). Only out_dir is never explained, leaving a minor gap in an otherwise strong compensation.

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+resource+deliverable: 'Build an After Effects FX comp from a template: returns a script to run in AE (nothing is rendered here).' It enumerates the concrete templates and distinguishes itself from sibling FX tools (fx_generate, fx_recipe) by making clear it only authors a comp/script rather than rendering.

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?

Gives an explicit end-to-end workflow: call with name="" to list templates, then run the returned `run_with` via ae_run_script, save the project, and pass the comp to ae_fx_to_spine with mode="additive" when indicated. It names the alternative tools to use downstream and the condition that selects each step.

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