set_render_engine

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's a mutating operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as side effects on existing settings or prerequisites. It only lists valid values, which is more relevant to parameters than 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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and the allowed options. It front-loads the key information with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter setter, the description covers the core action and valid values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral side effects, and the output schema's presence is not leveraged to explain return values. It is adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and no enum values for the engine parameter. The description compensates by explicitly listing the three allowed values (CYCLES, EEVEE, WORKBENCH), providing essential meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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 tool sets the render engine and explicitly lists the accepted values (CYCLES / EEVEE / WORKBENCH). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_render_resolution or set_render_samples.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning when it should be applied (e.g., before rendering) or any exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and context.

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