render_share

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

Annotations declare mutation and open-world traits; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing page durability beyond job file expiry, the operator review gate for gallery listing, the consent requirement before publishing, and the ownership precondition on the key. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before performing an irreversible public action.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the page contents before the operational caveats. It is long and clause-heavy in the opening sentence, but nearly every clause adds a fact (script gating, gallery review, durability, auth) rather than filler.

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 an output schema exists, the description still states that a URL is returned, and it covers durability, expiry, consent, ownership, and gallery review — everything an agent needs to call this correctly and safely. No material gap remains for a six-parameter public-publishing tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the floor, and the description beats it: it clarifies that include_script controls whether the bpy script appears, that prompt is rendered as 'what the user asked the agent', that title/note are shown on the page, and that listed only requests gallery placement subject to review. Marginal additions are modest since the schema already carries much of this.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a finished render as a public web page') and enumerates exactly what the page contains, so the agent can distinguish it from render_unshare (removal) and the render_* job tools. An agent can select this tool without opening 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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Only the key that rendered the job can share it'), the inverse tool for teardown ('until render_unshare'), the semantic difference of listed=True including operator review, and a direct behavioral instruction ('ask the user before sharing and return the url to them'). This is when-to-use, when-not-to, and alternatives all in one.

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