Control motion blur for an After Effects composition by enabling or disabling it, with options to set shutter angle and phase for precise blur effects.
Enable or disable motion blur for a composition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | Enable motion blur | |
| comp_name | Yes | Composition name | |
| shutter_angle | No | Shutter angle in degrees (0–720) | |
| shutter_phase | No | Shutter phase in degrees |
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 action but does not disclose side effects, behavior when disabled, whether the composition must exist, or how the optional shutter_angle and shutter_phase interact with the enabled flag.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, which makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 schema is rich and covers all parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides no context about preconditions, side effects, or optional parameter behavior. It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for fully informed use.
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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already documents all four parameters with types and ranges.
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 states a specific action ('Enable or disable') and a specific resource ('motion blur for a composition'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from potentially overlapping siblings like ae_modify_composition or ae_set_layer_property.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or preferred scenarios beyond the implied use of toggling composition-level motion blur.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.