export_animation_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes two files (contact sheet and preview GIF) to a specific path, that the GIF scale is locked to 90×128, and that it runs automatically under certain conditions. It does not detail error handling or side effects beyond file writes, but the provided context is substantial.

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 logically organized: purpose first, then requirements, outputs, a constraint, and an auto-run note. It is not overly verbose, and each sentence adds necessary information. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the primary function.

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?

It covers prerequisites, outputs, and a critical constraint, which is good. However, it leaves parameter semantics for three of four parameters unexplained, and does not mention error conditions or whether files are overwritten (implied by 'rebuild'). An output schema exists, which may cover return values, but the description alone is not fully complete for all aspects of usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains animation_name via the output filenames, but provides no meaning for name, output_dir, or duration_ms. The description does not mention how output_dir interacts with the default path, leaving agents to guess.

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 tool rebuilds a horizontal contact sheet and looping preview GIF for an animation, which is specific and distinct. It mentions prerequisites and outputs, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the auto-run note hints at a relationship with finish_frame_animation.

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?

It provides clear usage context: requires finished frame_00.png through frame_07.png, and explicitly warns not to invent a per-clip scale. It also notes that the tool runs automatically when finish_frame_animation locks frame 7, which implies when manual invocation may be unnecessary, though it doesn't name alternative tools.

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