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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint): background/async behavior, the project must be saved, 'nothing is charged', 'one operation per request; use the same requestId for retries', and the queued-vs-done distinction for verified readback. Only minor gap is what outputTemplate does behaviorally.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then prerequisites and polling. Dense but nearly every sentence carries actionable information; slightly packed with several distinct rules in one paragraph.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent where the result lives (result.assetId) and what status semantics mean. Combined with the deviceId prerequisite and revision freshness rule, an agent has enough to invoke correctly.

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 only 11% (just deviceId), so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains deviceId provenance, projectId/compId/revision from a fresh read, start/end as whole composition frames with a hint to read frameRate and durationFrames, and requestId retry semantics. It leaves outputTemplate and filename unexplained, which is the remaining gap.

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 ('Render the shared composition with aerender') plus the side effect ('put the movie in the Switch library'), which distinguishes it cleanly from aftereffects_request_edit and aftereffects_edit_status.

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?

Gives explicit ordering and alternatives: call aftereffects_list_connections first, poll aftereffects_edit_status until done, start with a 3-second draft before a full render. When-to-use and sequencing are fully spelled out.

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