Reorders layers in After Effects compositions by moving a specified layer to a new stack position, with 1 as the topmost layer.
Move a layer to a different position in the layer stack (1 = top)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comp_name | Yes | Composition name | |
| new_index | Yes | New layer index (1 = topmost) | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal the core operation and the index convention ('1 = top'), which is helpful. However, it does not explain how other layer indices shift after the move, whether out-of-bounds indices are allowed, or whether the operation can fail for special layer states.
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 elaboration. Every word adds value, and the parenthetical index convention is essential for correct use.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The main missing details are edge-case behaviors like index bounds and result confirmation, but these are not critical for basic correct invocation.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds only the layer-stack context and the '1 = top' convention, which is also already present in the schema's new_index description. This meets the baseline but adds no substantial new parameter meaning.
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 clearly specifies the action ('Move'), the object ('a layer'), and the target context ('in the layer stack'), making the tool's purpose immediately evident. It also distinguishes it from siblings like ae_delete_layer, ae_duplicate_layer, and ae_set_layer_property, none of which reorder layers.
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 layer-stack phrasing implies the tool is for changing z-order, which gives reasonable usage context. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives or mentions exclusions like locked/visible layers, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.