mrq_render_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying "Validate or start rendering" hints at a potentially long-running or side-effectful operation, but it does not explain what validation does, whether starting a render blocks, what side effects occur, or that dry_run likely controls the behavior.

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 short and front-loaded, with a useful KB reference and a concrete example. Every line earns its place, though the ambiguity of "Validate or start" prevents a top score.

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?

Although output schema exists and reduces the need to document return values, the description still leaves important gaps: no parameter semantics, no side-effect disclosure, and no alternative routing. The KB pointer helps but is not sufficient inline guidance for an agent to call the tool correctly in all cases.

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 needed to explain dry_run and executor, but it only provides an example call. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the meaning of the executor value (e.g., "pie") and the exact dry_run semantics are left unstated.

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 clear verb-resource pair: "Validate or start rendering the current Movie Render Queue." This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like mrq_create_job and mrq_add_render_setting, which are about job creation/configuration rather than acting on the current queue.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which validation vs. rendering is appropriate. The KB reference implies more context but does not say when to choose this tool over related MRQ tools.

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