export_gif

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the adaptive strategy (steps fps, width and palette/quality down until the file fits) and that it reports the settings used, which tells the agent output is degraded rather than failing. It does not say what happens if the budget cannot be met or that overwrite is off by default, leaving some mutation/side-effect behavior undocumented.

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, both front-loaded with the essential purpose before the mechanical detail. Nothing is redundant with the title and every clause adds information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by saying it reports the settings used. For a 9-parameter export tool with no annotations, the remaining gap is the failure mode when the size budget cannot be met.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining that fps and width are starting values that get reduced, and by restating the 10 MB default budget as a GitHub-derived limit. It doesn't clarify start/duration or overwrite semantics 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 (export a video as an animated GIF/WebP) plus the distinguishing constraint: it fits a file-size budget. That budget-driven framing separates it from convert, compress and export_preset without the agent opening any schema.

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?

Names the intended destinations (PRs, issues, READMEs) and the default 10 MB GitHub limit, which is a clear usage context. It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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