Create a folder in the After Effects project panel to organize assets, optionally nesting it within a parent folder.
Create a folder in the After Effects project panel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Folder name | |
| parent_folder | No | Parent folder name (null = project root) |
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 must disclose side effects itself. It confirms a mutating 'create' action, but does not say whether an open project is required, what happens if a folder with the same name exists, or what the function returns. It adds only the project-panel context, leaving key behavioral details to inference.
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?
Single sentence, no filler, with the essential verb-resource-location structure front-loaded. Every word contributes to meaning.
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 simple two-parameter creation tool, the schema covers parameter semantics well, but the description omits operational prerequisites such as needing an open project and error behavior for duplicate names or invalid parents. Without annotations or an output schema, an agent still has to infer some execution context.
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%, and both parameters already contain clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the name or parent_folder parameters, so it meets the baseline but nothing more.
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 verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('folder'), and a specific location ('After Effects project panel'), cleanly distinguishing this from sibling layer/composition/project-item tools. No other sibling creates folders, so there is no ambiguity.
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 no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not mention that a project must be open or how this relates to folder organization workflows. This is essentially a statement of function, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.