mcp_aftereffects_applyEffect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the effect overrides existing effects, requires specific permissions, or produces any side effects. The behavioral impact of applying an effect is not described.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is not verbose, though it could be slightly expanded to include key usage hints without losing conciseness.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior, error cases, or how the effect interacts with the layer's existing effects. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks holistic operational context.

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 is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides clear semantics for each parameter, including the optionality of 'effectSettings' and the reliability distinction between 'effectName' and 'effectMatchName'.

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 the action ('Apply an effect') and the resource ('to a layer in After Effects'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'apply-effect-template' by specifying the application context, though it relies on the tool name for full differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'apply-effect-template' or 'run-script'. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to have a composition and layer already created, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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