mrq_create_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It hints at editor-side mutation by saying 'in the editor queue', but does not explain whether existing jobs are replaced, whether duplicate job names are handled, or whether the job is rendered immediately or only queued.

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 compact, front-loaded, and includes a concrete example plus a knowledge-base pointer. There is no filler, and the example adds practical value, though the brevity leaves significant semantic gaps.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 10 optional parameters and zero schema-level descriptions, yet the description only covers a few of them. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks enough context about the remaining parameters and how this tool fits into the broader MRQ workflow.

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. The example clarifies that job_name is a string, sequence is a game asset path, and resolution is a [width, height] array, but the other seven parameters such as map, clear_queue, image_format, output_directory, and overwrite_existing receive no semantic explanation.

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 states the action ('Create and configure'), the resource ('Movie Render Queue job'), and the location ('in the editor queue'). It is distinct from the broader sibling list, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related mrq_add_render_setting or mrq_render_queue tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling MRQ tools. The example implies a typical call but does not state prerequisites, when to prefer this tool, or when to use mrq_add_render_setting or mrq_render_queue instead.

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