Generate a deterministic GIF and frame manifest from selected animated assets to standardize previews.
Compose selected animated library previews into a deterministic GIF and frame manifest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | ||
| frames | No | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| padding | No | ||
| delay_ms | No | ||
| item_ids | Yes | ||
| output_filename | Yes | ||
| manifest_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It adds useful context like 'deterministic' and the output artifacts, but does not state whether the tool writes files, whether it is destructive, what input state is required, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a composition tool.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with a clear subject-action-object structure and no filler. It is not bloated, though its brevity limits the amount of guidance it can provide.
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?
Given the tool's complexity, 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many closely related siblings, this description is under-specified. It gives the core idea but omits usage context, parameter semantics, file side effects, and the relationship to alternative composition/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 0% and the description does not explain the eight parameters. It loosely maps item_ids to 'selected animated library previews' and filenames to 'GIF and frame manifest', but width, height, frames, padding, delay_ms, and manifest details are left undocumented, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.
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?
The description clearly names the action (compose), the resource (selected animated library previews), and the output (deterministic GIF and frame manifest). This distinguishes it well from siblings like compose_asset_scene and export_animation_gif by emphasizing both animation and the manifest artifact.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not explain when to choose this tool over compose_asset_scene, export_animation_gif, build_animation_sheet, or plan_asset_scene, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.