set_render_resolution

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it performs a mutation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens to existing resolution settings, whether the change is reversible, or if there are side effects on the render pipeline. The description merely restates the action implied by the tool name and annotations.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides minimal value and omits critical details about usage, parameters, and behavior. While every word earns its place, the whole message is too sparse to be useful.

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?

Despite having three parameters, a destructive hint, and an output schema, the description is just one sentence. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how this tool relates to other render settings. Given the complexity of render configuration, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing.

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 defines width, height, and percentage with defaults, but the description provides no explanation of these parameters. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full responsibility for parameter semantics, yet it offers nothing. The agent is left to infer parameter meaning solely from schema names, which is insufficient (e.g., percentage relative to what?).

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 'Atur resolusi render' translates to 'Set render resolution', which clearly identifies the action (set) and the resource (render resolution). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_render_engine and set_render_samples by focusing specifically on resolution. However, it does not elaborate on the aspects of resolution (e.g., width, height, percentage), making it slightly less descriptive than an ideal 5.

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 such as set_render_samples or set_render_range. The description does not provide context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It is a bare statement of function with no usage direction.

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