render.preview

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that settings are temporary, that all camera and render settings are restored afterward, and that the return value is PNG evidence. This makes the mutation/side-effect profile clear despite readOnlyHint being false.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary action, states the output, and closes with the restoration guarantee. There is no filler or repetition; every clause adds useful information.

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 tool with severe complexity—8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no parameter-level guidance—the description is not complete enough. The agent cannot determine how to obtain expected_camera_identity or expected_scene_generation, what idempotency_key is for, or what happens on mismatch or failure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, the description would need to compensate, but it does not explain critical parameters like expected_camera_identity, expected_scene_generation, or idempotencyekey. It only vaguely covers rendering parameters as 'temporary bounded Settings'; the guard/verification parameters remain 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 uses a specific verb ('Render'), a clear resource ('one exact Camera'), and specifies the temporary render mode, the PNG evidence return, and the restoration of settings. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like render.save or viewport.capture without needing to open the schema.

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 usage context is implied: it is a preview render that produces temporary PNG evidence and restores settings. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of render.save or viewport.capture, nor does it state when not to use it.

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