aiModifySelectedLayer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a mutation tool it omits whether existing keyframes/properties are overwritten or merged, whether it is reversible, whether it requires network/AI access and is non-deterministic, and what the user is charged in latency. It only notes the optional screenshot input.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and mechanism, with the capability list and the screenshot option trailing. Efficient with no filler, though the parenthetical list makes it slightly overloaded.

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?

Given a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and capability scope but leaves key behavioral questions unanswered (destructiveness, determinism, AI dependency). It is adequate but not complete for the complexity involved.

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 five parameters (prompt, compName, layerName, layerIndex, attachScreenshot). The description adds only the 'optional visual screenshot input' hint, which duplicates attachScreenshot rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Instruct AI to modify a specific layer in After Effects using natural language prompt', and enumerates the capability scope (transforms, keyframes, effects, masks, expressions). This clearly sets it apart from the granular siblings like applyEffect or setLayerProperties, though it never names them explicitly.

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 natural-language framing implies when to reach for this tool versus the surgical siblings, but the description never states that explicitly nor gives any when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g. does it require a layer to be selected or an AI backend?). Usage is implied rather than directed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.