Create a solid color layer in an After Effects composition by specifying its name, dimensions, and RGB values.
Add a solid color layer to a composition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | Width in pixels | |
| height | No | Height in pixels | |
| color_b | No | Blue channel (0-1) | |
| color_g | No | Green channel (0-1) | |
| color_r | No | Red channel (0-1) | |
| comp_name | Yes | Target composition name | |
| layer_name | Yes | Name for the solid layer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation ('Add') without explaining side effects, layer placement, whether the layer is selected afterward, or any other observable project change. A creation tool benefits from describing what happens beyond the immediate action.
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 with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
Despite a complete schema, the absence of annotations, output schema, and operational context leaves gaps for a mutating AE tool. The description does not address what happens to the existing composition, whether the composition is created if missing, or what observable result the agent should expect. This makes the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.
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%, so the parameters are already well documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond what the schema provides, though 'solid color layer' does loosely connect the color and size parameters to the operation.
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 ('Add'), resource ('solid color layer'), and target ('composition'). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling layer-creation tools such as ae_add_shape_layer or ae_add_null_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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ae_add_text_layer, ae_add_null_layer, or ae_add_shape_layer. It also does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the target composition must already exist, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.