Export an animation as a GIF with optional width, height, quality, and loop overrides, then return metadata about the generated file.
Export the animation as a GIF. Returns metadata about the export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loop | No | Override timeline loop setting. | |
| width | No | Export width. Default: sketch canvas width. | |
| height | No | Export height. Default: sketch canvas height. | |
| quality | No | Default "standard". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only says the tool returns metadata; it does not disclose whether a file is written, where it is saved, whether permissions are required, or whether the animation/timeline must exist.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence adds minimal but relevant return-type context. The description is compact but somewhat under-specified for an export operation.
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 4-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the operation and return metadata, but omits important context such as output destination, side effects, and relationship to other export tools.
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 schema already documents width, height, quality, and loop defaults. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at baseline.
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: exporting the animation as a GIF. It distinguishes itself from generic export tools only implicitly by naming the GIF format, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like design_export_frames.
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 this tool is for GIF export, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus design_export_frames, export_sketch, or capture_screenshot. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.