Move an effect up or down in the After Effects layer effect stack to control the order effects are applied.
Reorder an effect in the layer effect stack (move up or down)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compName | No | Composition name | |
| newIndex | Yes | Target index in the effect stack (1-based) | |
| layerName | No | Layer name | |
| effectName | No | Effect name to move | |
| layerIndex | No | Layer index (1-based) | |
| effectIndex | No | Effect index to move |
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. It discloses only that this reorders within the effect stack, saying nothing about permissions, out-of-range index handling, whether the operation is reversible, or the response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 action front-loaded and no wasted words. The trailing parenthetical adds marginal confusion rather than value, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not explain how to identify the target effect (name-based vs index-based params) or what newIndex must be. For this complexity level the description is too thin to fully guide a correct invocation.
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 all six parameters (including the two ways to identify the effect: layerName/effectName vs layerIndex/effectIndex) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 3.
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 ('Reorder an effect in the layer effect stack'), which clearly separates it from siblings like applyEffect, removeEffect, and setEffectProperties. However, it does not name a sibling it is not, and the parenthetical 'move up or down' slightly conflicts with the schema's absolute 'newIndex'.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as setEffectProperties or applyEffect, and no prerequisites (e.g., effect must already exist on the layer). Usage is only implied by the verb 'reorder'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.