set_render_samples

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds the scope constraint that samples apply to the active engine, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like impact on render time or quality, nor does it explain how it interacts with different engine types beyond the parenthetical mention.

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 one short sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and includes scope information in a compact manner. While it could be more informative, it does not waste words. The use of a non-English phrase is still concise but may slightly reduce universal clarity.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally viable. It states the purpose and scope, but lacks usage guidance and detailed parameter semantics. Given the simplicity of the tool, the absence of these details is a visible gap, though not crippling.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining the 'samples' parameter. It merely repeats the parameter name and provides a generic context ('set sample'), but does not explain what the value controls, acceptable ranges, or how the default (64) behaves. The schema shows the type and default, but the description adds no new meaning.

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 action ('set samples for active engine') with a specific resource (render samples) and scope (engine aktif, Cycles/EEVEE). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_render_engine and set_render_resolution, which target different aspects of render settings.

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 description gives no explicit context for when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having an active engine) or contrast with sibling tools that may also affect render quality, such as set_cycles_device or set_render_resolution. The only implicit cue is the phrase 'engine aktif', which hints at a precondition but does not guide selection.

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