Interface native After Effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the actions (driving the UI, executing menus) but does not mention side effects (e.g., UI changes, potential non-reversibility), prerequisites (After Effects must be open with a project), error behavior, or whether the operation is blocking. The description is honest about scope but lacks depth on consequences.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the main verb and resource, then lists key capabilities and examples. It is moderately long but every clause carries information. The examples are useful but slightly verbose; still, it remains tight relative to the tool's complexity (8 params, 4 actions).

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 tool with 8 parameters, 4 actions, and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, success/failure indicators, or whether the operation blocks until completion. It provides examples that help an agent understand typical use, but leaves ambiguity around behavior after invocation (e.g., does it return anything? does it wait for UI to settle?). The description covers the 'what' but not the 'what happens'.

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% (all 8 params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that menu commands can be given by name in English or French, which is extra semantics beyond the schema's minimal 'nom de la commande' for the command parameter. It also maps the action enum to its capabilities (menus, playhead, selection, comp opening), reinforcing 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?

The description clearly states the tool controls After Effects like a user (executing menu commands, moving playhead, selecting layers, opening compositions). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's for operations without scripted equivalents, giving concrete examples ('Create Shapes from Text', 'Convert Audio to Keyframes'), which differentiates it from ae_run or ae_comp.

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 explicitly says the tool is useful for operations 'without scripted equivalent', implying when to use it. It lists example menu commands that have no direct script, giving clear context. However, it does not name specific alternative tools (like ae_run for scripts) or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full explicitness.

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