Enables time remapping on an After Effects layer to adjust playback speed and create retiming effects. Specify the composition and layer names to activate the time remap property.
Enable time remapping on an AV layer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comp_name | Yes | Composition name | |
| layer_name | Yes | Layer name |
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 explaining behavior. It only restates the operation and the AV-layer target; it does not disclose potential side effects, whether the operation toggles or strictly enables, whether existing keyframes are affected, or what happens on invalid layers.
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 words or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately compact for a two-parameter tool, though it could have included a bit more operational context without becoming bloated.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: the action, target layer type, and required parameters are identifiable, and the schema covers the parameters fully. However, usage conditions and behavioral side effects are left unexplained, which is a clear gap.
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?
The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds slight semantic value by indicating that layer_name should refer to an AV layer, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Enable'), a specific feature ('time remapping'), and a clear target ('an AV layer'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also stands apart from many siblings like ae_set_layer_property or ae_set_layer_time because it names the exact operation being performed.
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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as ae_set_layer_property or ae_add_keyframe. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, so an agent must infer applicability purely from the tool name and the short action phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.