render

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it spends credits and is deprecated, which is useful behavioral context not in the annotations. However, it doesn't clarify permission requirements or what happens to existing renders.

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, efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the core action and noting the credit cost and deprecation. It is appropriately sized.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It conveys credit spending and deprecation but doesn't cover return values, side effects, or parameter details, leaving gaps for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 50%, with the 'language' parameter well-documented in the schema and 'dubbing_id' partially documented, while 'render_type' and 'normalize_volume' lack descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers half the parameters.

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 ('Render') and resource ('Audio Or Video') for a given language. It doesn't differentiate itself from dubbing siblings like 'dub' or 'generate', but the core action is clear.

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 notes it 'Spends ElevenLabs credits' and is 'Deprecated upstream', which gives some context for caution, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dub' or 'generate'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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