Queue multiple After Effects compositions for rendering in a single operation, with optional immediate start to batch-process render jobs efficiently.
Queue multiple compositions for rendering in a single operation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | Yes | List of render jobs | |
| start_render | No | Start rendering immediately after queuing all items |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it only says 'Queue' without disclosing that the start_render parameter defaults to true, meaning rendering may begin immediately. It also does not mention whether the existing render queue is cleared, how errors are handled, or whether the operation is destructive.
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. It states the core action and scope efficiently, leaving room for schema-level parameter details.
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 batch operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. An agent needs to know that start_render defaults to true, what happens to the existing render queue, and how the batch operation behaves if one job fails. These gaps materially affect whether the agent calls the tool safely.
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 documented in the schema. The description's 'multiple compositions' loosely maps to the jobs array, but it adds no extra semantic detail about comp_name matching, output_path requirements, or the output_template relationship.
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 clear verb ('Queue'), resource ('multiple compositions'), and outcome ('for rendering in a single operation'). It differentiates from singular tools like ae_add_to_render_queue through 'multiple' and from ae_start_render by framing the action as queuing, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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 phrase 'multiple compositions in a single operation' implies this tool is for batch rendering rather than single-item operations like ae_add_to_render_queue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.