Add a light layer to an After Effects composition. Configure light type (point, spot, parallel, or ambient), RGB color, and intensity for precise scene illumination.
Add a light layer to a composition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color_b | No | Blue (0–1) | |
| color_g | No | Green (0–1) | |
| color_r | No | Red (0–1) | |
| comp_name | Yes | Composition name | |
| intensity | No | Light intensity (%) | |
| light_name | No | Light name | Light 1 |
| light_type | No | Type of light | point |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a light layer is added, without mentioning side effects, required existence of the composition, default light behavior, or error handling. This is minimal rather than misleading.
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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it sacrifices informative depth for brevity.
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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is thin. The schema handles parameter details well, but the description does not explain what happens when the light is added or what the operation implies beyond the basic action.
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 description coverage is 100%, with every parameter documented and defaults provided. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Add a light layer to a composition.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ae_add_camera, ae_add_text_layer, ae_add_solid_layer, ae_add_null_layer, and ae_add_shape_layer.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the appropriate context solely from the tool name and the single sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.