compile-lottie-comp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the source comp is cloned (non-destructive), names the default output name, and enumerates exactly what gets transformed or stripped (expressions baked, text/vector converted, 3D flattened, raster effects removed). It does not mention return values, failure modes, or whether the original comp is ever modified beyond the clone.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, followed by a tight enumeration of transformations. Dense but every clause carries information; the long comma-separated list is the only mild readability cost.

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?

For a 10-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the important transformations and their defaults. It leaves gaps only on return value and any preconditions on the target comp, which are minor for this operation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to several flags: bakeExpressions is tied to resolving sourceRectAtTime/valueAtTime/wiggle runtime errors, and flatten3D is tied to preventing 2D player glitches. That rationale helps an agent decide whether to override the defaults.

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 pair (restructure and compile), the resource (After Effects composition), and the concrete outcome (100% Lottie-compliant). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like audit-lottie-compliance and export-lottie-json, which check or export rather than transform.

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 description implies the tool is used as a pre-export fix-up step but never states when to choose it over audit-lottie-compliance or export-lottie-json, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the 'make it 100% Lottie-compliant' framing but no alternative is named.

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