Rename a layer in an After Effects composition by providing the composition name, current layer name, and new name. Keep layers organized and identifiable.
Rename a layer in a composition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | New name | |
| comp_name | Yes | Composition name | |
| layer_name | Yes | Current layer name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the rename operation and does not disclose effects on references, error behavior, or whether the rename is scoped solely to the given composition.
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 or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation and every word contributes to understanding.
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?
The description is minimally adequate for a simple three-parameter rename tool, but it omits important context such as what happens if the layer is not found, whether duplicate names are allowed, and whether renaming affects other compositions or expressions. Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, this is a noticeable 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already documented as 'Composition name', 'Current layer name', and 'New name'. The description adds little beyond confirming the operation context, so a baseline score of 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 specifies a clear verb ('Rename'), a concrete resource ('a layer'), and the context ('in a composition'), so the operation is unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ae_rename_composition by targeting layers rather than compositions.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ae_rename_composition or ae_set_layer_property. There are no conditions, exclusions, or examples indicating the appropriate selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.