Update a composition's name in Adobe After Effects to avoid confusion. Provide the new name; optionally specify which composition to change.
Rename an existing composition in Adobe After Effects
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newName | Yes | New name for the composition | |
| compName | No | Current name of the composition (defaults to active composition) |
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 behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say what happens to layer references, expressions, or rendered output that point at the old name, whether the rename is undoable, or what error surfaces if the composition does not exist.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness reflects missing information rather than disciplined editing.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior, and it does not. An agent cannot tell whether the operation is safe, reversible, or what it returns.
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 in the schema, including the useful default that compName falls back to the active composition. The description adds no syntax, naming-constraint, or collision-handling detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Rename') and resource ('composition') with the host application named. It distinguishes itself from most siblings, but does not differentiate from setCompositionProperties, which could plausibly also rename a composition.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as setCompositionProperties. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the rename path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.