mrq_add_render_setting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool mutates or upserts a setting ('Add or update'), which is the core behavioral trait, but it does not mention overwrite semantics, prerequisites, or side effects beyond what the name already implies.

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 two short sentences plus a compact KB pointer and one example; all parts add information and there is no filler. The example is particularly valuable for grounding the parameter pattern.

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 14-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, this is incomplete even though an output schema exists. It lacks parameter semantics, usage conditions, and behavior expectations, relying on a KB link and a single example to fill large gaps.

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 add parameter meaning. It connects setting_type categories to a concrete example (anti_aliasing with temporal_samples and warmup_frames) but leaves most of the 14 parameters (frame_start/end, resolution, handle_frames, output_directory, console_variables, etc.) 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 clearly identifies the action ('Add or update') and the resource (MRQ settings, specifically output, pass, anti-aliasing, or console variables). It is distinct in practice from sibling tools like mrq_create_job and mrq_render_queue, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the action phrase and example: call this when you want to set a render-related option on an MRQ job. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternative tools for render job creation or queueing.

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