shorts_render

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that it renders drafts and does not disclose side effects, permissions, overwrite behavior, or output characteristics beyond the existence of an output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it chooses to convey.

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?

Given zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter meaning, required inputs, and usage context, leaving the agent with little to invoke the tool correctly beyond the name and a high-level intent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters. It indirectly suggests 'saved plan' for plan_path_or_dir and 'approved candidate' for candidate_id, but gives no format, path semantics, or any mention of the optional output_path parameter.

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 (Render) and resource (platform drafts) with workflow qualifiers ('approved candidate', 'saved plan'). It is clear enough to distinguish from many generic video tools, but does not differentiate from sibling render tools like video_workflow_render or hyperframes_render.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are named. The phrase 'for an approved candidate from a saved plan' implies a prerequisite but provides no actionable routing guidance among the many render siblings.

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