add-lottie-state-markers

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a write to the composition but never states that existing markers may be cleared (clearExistingMarkers defaults to true in the schema), nor whether the change is undoable, nor permission/comp-selection requirements. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the mode enumeration; no filler words. It could be tightened by merging the examples into one clause, but it is efficient overall.

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 5 parameters, no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more work than it does. It covers what the tool makes and its two modes, but omits the marker-clearing default, how the target comp is resolved, and any return/confirmation detail, leaving gaps an agent must fill from the schema.

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 and their semantics are already fully documented; baseline 3 applies. The description only echoes the preset enum values and supplies example state names ('idle', 'hover', 'active', 'exit'), which adds slight flavor but no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Add named interactive state markers to an After Effects composition timeline') and grounds it in a purpose (dotLottie interactive playback). It implicitly separates itself from generic marker tools like add-marker via 'interactive state' markers, but never names those siblings, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

The mention of presets ('button_toggle', 'hover_loop', 'toggle_switch') versus 'custom state definitions' implies two usage modes, which is useful. However, it never says when to prefer this over add-marker, add-markers-bulk, or generate-lottie-interactivity, and no prerequisites (comp targeting, existing-markers state) are given.

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