Apply an After Effects effect to a layer by entering its match name, enabling precise effect selection without needing the display name.
Apply an effect to a layer using its match name (e.g. 'ADBE Gaussian Blur 2')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comp_name | Yes | Composition name | |
| layer_name | Yes | Layer name | |
| effect_match_name | Yes | Effect match name (e.g. 'ADBE Drop Shadow') |
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 the generic mutation 'apply an effect' and repeats the match-name mechanism; it does not mention side effects, error conditions, whether existing effects are replaced, or what happens on invalid input.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the operation and includes a relevant example. There is no redundant or filler content, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 core call is fully specified thanks to three well-documented required parameters and no output schema. However, the description lacks prerequisite context, failure behavior, and any distinction from the batch sibling, making it only minimally complete.
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 baseline is 3 even without additional parameter explanation. The description adds only an illustrative example for effect_match_name that largely duplicates the schema's example, providing no meaningful semantic enrichment.
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 a specific action ('Apply an effect to a layer') and the identifying mechanism (match name), which is a strong verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling ae_batch_apply_effect, so it stops short of a 5.
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 for when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ae_batch_apply_effect or ae_run_script. The description implies a single-layer effect application use case, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when the batch variant would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.