Export a .riv animation to Lottie JSON

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing that the result reports unsupported/approximated features and whether pixel comparison was available — non-obvious fidelity caveats for a Lottie exporter. However, it never states that the tool writes a file to disk, what happens if the output path already exists, or what the "all unsupported" annotation on the animation parameter means for callers.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and format, followed by what the result reports. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 five fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description usefully explains what the response conveys (unsupported/approximated features, pixel comparison availability). The remaining gap is the file-write side effect and its overwrite/error semantics, which an agent needs before pointing the tool at a real path.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter (fps, out, path, artboard, animation) is already documented with defaults. The description adds only the "one animation at a time" scoping constraint and otherwise restates 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 concrete verb+resource+target format ("Export one .riv animation to Lottie JSON"), which cleanly separates it from render-oriented siblings like riv_render_video or riv_render_gif. It doesn't acknowledge the near-neighbor sibling riv_lottie_import or state the inverse relationship, so the differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

There is no "use this when..." clause, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as riv_render_video for visual output or riv_dump for raw data. The agent must infer the conversion use case entirely from the one-line purpose.

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