ae_create_compositionCreate a new After Effects composition by defining its name, dimensions, duration, and frame rate, then make it active in the viewer for editing.
Create a new composition and make it the active item in the viewer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Composition name. | |
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| duration | No | Duration in seconds. | |
| frameRate | No | ||
| pixelAspect | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious side effect — the new composition becomes the active item in the viewer — which goes beyond the tool name. However it says nothing about which project receives the composition, name-collision behavior, required permissions, or failure modes, leaving major behavioral gaps for a creation tool.
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?
A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place, including the viewer-activation detail.
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 six-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. Missing are creation target (active project), default-value expectations beyond the schema, name uniqueness behavior, and any indication of what the tool returns to identify the new composition.
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 only 33% (name and duration described; width, height, frameRate, pixelAspect undocumented). The description contributes zero parameter information and does not compensate for the coverage gap, so an agent must guess at frameRate units, pixelAspect meaning, and dimension constraints from the schema alone.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new composition') and even adds a scope detail (becomes the active item in the viewer). It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like ae_list_compositions, though it does not explicitly name or route against any alternative.
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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ae_list_compositions or the layer-adding tools that would typically follow composition creation. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.