Replace a footage item's source file in an After Effects project; all uses update automatically.
Replace the source file of a footage item in the project (all uses update automatically)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| footage_name | Yes | Name of the footage item in the project panel | |
| new_file_path | Yes | Absolute path to the replacement file |
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 burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the operation mutates the footage item's source file and that all uses update automatically, which is valuable context. It omits failure-mode details like invalid paths or missing footage names, but the core behavior is transparent.
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. Every phrase adds meaning: the action, the target, and the consequence are all covered efficiently.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: it names the footage item parameter, the replacement path parameter, and the cascade effect on all uses. Edge-case behavior is not described, but that is not critical at this complexity level.
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 both parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds the concept of replacing the source file and automatic propagation, but it does not materially enhance the parameter-level semantics 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 ('Replace'), a specific resource ('the source file of a footage item'), and a useful consequence ('all uses update automatically'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like ae_import_file or ae_delete_project_item, so an agent can identify when this tool is the right one.
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 makes the use case understandable: swap the source file of an existing footage item while preserving all uses. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as importing a new footage item instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.