Proprietes et expressions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions read and write capabilities and expression handling but does not describe side effects, error behavior, requirements (e.g., layer existence, permissions), or what happens when setting properties (overwrite, animation handling). The lack of such details for a mutation-capable tool is a significant omission.

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 description is two sentences, front-loading the core read/write functionality and then briefly covering expressions and tree exploration. It is efficient, with no fluff or redundancy, and every clause earns its place given the tool's breadth.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters, 5 actions, and no output schema. The description provides an overview but does not explain what each action returns, how parameters interact, or any constraints (e.g., when 'time' applies, how 'properties' batch works). An agent would need to consult the schema and likely the help tool to use it correctly, making the description insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 15 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some conceptual context by mentioning expression modes (raw code vs parameterized recipe) and property tree exploration, which helps map the 'expression' and 'recipe' parameters and the 'tree' action. However, it does not materially deepen understanding beyond the schema's own explanations.

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 clearly states the tool reads and writes any layer property via path, covering effects, vector contents, and masks, and also handles expressions and tree exploration. The verb+resource is specific ('Lire et ecrire n'importe quelle propriete d'un calque'), distinguishing it as a general-purpose property tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to contrast with.

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 description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ae_effect, ae_keyframes, or ae_text. It does not state preferred scenarios, exclusions, or conditions that would steer an agent toward an alternative. With many sibling tools that likely overlap, this gap forces the agent to infer usage from the tool's generic scope.

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