Render Krita animations to MP4, WebM, GIF, MOV, MKV, or APNG files in the workspace using bundled ffmpeg; set frame range, FPS, width, quality, and bitrate.
Render the animation (default: playback range) to .mp4 (H.264), .webm (VP9), .gif, .mov (ProRes), .mkv or .apng in the workspace, using the ffmpeg bundled with Krita. width scales the output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| fps | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| start | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| quality | No | ||
| bitrate_kbps | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver real context: rendering uses Krita's bundled ffmpeg, output lands in the workspace, and the default range is the playback range. It omits behavior an agent needs for a write/export tool — overwrite semantics for an existing path, whether the call blocks on a long render, and any error or partial-file behavior.
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 action first and the format/codec enumeration second; nothing is padding. The format list is long but each entry carries real encoding information, so it earns its space.
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 7-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: the encode-quality knobs (fps, quality, bitrate_kbps) and the required path parameter are left entirely to an undocumented schema. An agent could guess reasonable defaults but could not confidently set quality or bitrate from this text.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it explains width ("width scales the output") and implies the start/end default via the playback range. fps, quality, bitrate_kbps, and path — including what path is relative to — get no meaning beyond their bare titles, leaving four of seven parameters unexplained.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Render the animation") plus the exact output formats and codecs (.mp4/H.264, .webm/VP9, .gif, .mov/ProRes, .mkv, .apng), which implicitly separates it from frame-export siblings like export_animation_frames. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary with export_image, export_animation_frames, and generate_video.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only routing hint is incidental — "default: playback range" tells the agent the scope when start/end are omitted, but nothing says when to pick this over export_animation_frames or generate_video.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.