Render (destructive)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious two-phase plan/confirm safety flow that no annotation conveys. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens to the underlying media when a preset or job is removed, which would be the next useful layer.

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-loads the purpose in one line, then a compact bulleted action list with required params asterisked, then the confirm contract. The trailing batch_run sentence is telegraphic and slightly awkward but still carries a real routing instruction.

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 destructive, nested-object tool this covers the essentials: what each action destroys, the confirm-token protocol, and the batching alternative, while the output schema and annotations handle return shape and risk signaling. A note on snapshot/dry_run interaction with the confirm flow would close the remaining gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the schema's op object is a free-form bag with additionalProperties=true and only points back to the description for per-action params. The description carries that load by naming the required parameter for each action (job_ids, name), which the schema cannot express.

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 ("Remove render objects") and immediately enumerates the four concrete operations, so an agent knows exactly what surface this tool covers. It does not explicitly disambiguate against the nearby render_read / render_write siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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 a clear operational instruction: the first call returns a plan plus confirm_token and must be repeated with that token to apply, and defers known-in-advance sequences to batch_run. What is missing is guidance on when to prefer this over render_write (e.g., update_render_preset lives here despite being an overwrite) or other *_delete siblings.

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