Set a layer's parent to another layer in an After Effects composition, enabling hierarchical transform behavior. Provide composition, child layer, and parent layer to apply or clear parenting.
Set the parent of a layer to another layer (for hierarchical transforms)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comp_name | Yes | Composition name | |
| layer_name | Yes | Child layer name | |
| parent_layer_name | Yes | Parent layer name, or null to clear parenting |
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 carries the full disclosure burden. It states the core operation and the key behavioral consequence — 'hierarchical transforms,' meaning the child inherits the parent's transform. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing parent assignment is silently replaced or whether the child's local transform is preserved after reparenting.
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?
One 15-word sentence with zero filler. The operation is front-loaded ('Set the parent...'), and the purpose clause 'for hierarchical transforms' earns its place by explaining the behavioral rationale in a few words.
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 low-complexity 3-param tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description plus schema cover the operation, the special null case, and the purpose. Minor gaps remain: error conditions are undescribed and the description never explicitly states that the parent layer must reside in the same composition — but these are reasonable defaults for a tool this simple.
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%: 'Child layer name' and 'Parent layer name, or null to clear parenting' already document all three parameters, including the null-to-clear edge case. The description adds no param-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline 3.
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 and resource — 'Set the parent of a layer to another layer' — leaving no ambiguity about the operation. The parenthetical 'for hierarchical transforms' adds the rationale for the operation. Even among 70+ siblings, none other targets layer parenting, so it is clearly distinguishable.
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 'for hierarchical transforms' implies the use case: establishing transform inheritance between layers. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over related siblings like ae_set_layer_property or ae_precompose_layers, nor when not to use it (e.g., for pure grouping without transform inheritance). The usage context is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.