export-dotlottie-package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by enumerating what the output container holds. However, it omits key behavior: that the tool writes a file to disk with overwrite semantics, that statePreset mutates the composition before packaging, and whether After Effects must be running or a comp must be open.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is slightly dense in its file listing, but every clause carries information about the produced artifact.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the returned artifact's contents. It still leaves gaps around success/error reporting, path handling, and side effects of statePreset for a tool that writes files and mutates a project.

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 four parameters (compName, compIndex, outputPath, statePreset) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or selection semantics beyond what is already there; the baseline of 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 specific verb (Export) and resource (After Effects composition) plus the exact artifact produced: a .lottie ZIP containing Lottie JSON, manifest.json, and states/interactivity.json. This differentiates it from nearby siblings such as export-lottie-json and compile-lottie-comp by describing the packaged output, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 statement of when to choose this packaging tool over export-lottie-json, compile-lottie-comp, or generate-lottie-interactivity. The word 'directly' hints at a one-step flow, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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