ae_batch_set_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It only says the tool sets a property value and gives no information about side effects, keyframe handling, prerequisites, or error behavior. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the batch scoping is immediately visible. Nothing in the description is redundant with the schema.

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?

With complete schema coverage and a clear purpose, an agent can invoke the tool correctly. However, there is no annotation, no output schema, and the description does not clarify behavior such as what happens when time is null vs set, whether existing keyframes are overwritten, or how missing layers are handled. These gaps limit completeness.

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 in the schema, including helpful details like the property_path example and the ['*'] wildcard for layer_names. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states a specific action (Set) and resource (property value on multiple layers in a composition). The phrase 'multiple layers' and 'at once' distinguishes it from the sibling ae_set_layer_property, making the purpose immediately understandable and non-tautological.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a property needs to be set on multiple layers simultaneously. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'for a single layer use ae_set_layer_property'), but the batch orientation is very clear from the wording.

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