Rename any Adobe After Effects composition directly by providing its current name and the desired new name, keeping project assets organized.
Rename a composition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | New name | |
| comp_name | Yes | Current 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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not mention side effects, persistence, uniqueness requirements, or whether existing references to the composition are updated.
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 short and front-loaded with no filler. It could be slightly richer, but the brevity is appropriate for a simple two-parameter rename operation.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple rename operation, but it leaves important context unstated: error conditions, duplicate name behavior, persistence, and what the tool returns after success. An agent receives little guidance beyond the schema.
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 schema fully documents both parameters with clear descriptions ('Current name' and 'New name') at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 and resource: 'Rename a composition'. It is clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like ae_rename_layer and ae_modify_composition, though it does not add any context beyond what the tool name already conveys.
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 intended usage is implied by the verb and resource, but the description provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. In a large sibling suite, an agent would benefit from a note like 'use ae_rename_layer to rename layers instead'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.