render_set_passes

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds that passes are addressed by name, but says nothing about whether toggling a pass discards its settings, whether unspecified passes are left untouched, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the sibling pointer placed where it is most useful. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the discovery sibling is referenced. However, for a two-parameter mutation with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the interaction between enable and disable and the effect on unlisted passes unspecified, which is a real gap for an agent composing a call.

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 carry the load, and it only partially does: 'by name' clarifies that the string arrays hold pass names, and 'on or off' loosely maps to enable/disable. It never explains whether both lists may be supplied simultaneously, which wins on conflict, or what null means, so half the parameter semantics remain implicit.

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 concrete verb ('switch ... on or off') and a specific resource ('render passes'), plus the keying method ('by name'). It also names the sibling that enumerates passes, so an agent can distinguish this from render_get and render_set without opening a 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?

The parenthetical '(render_get lists them)' gives the prerequisite step for discovering valid pass names, which is the main usage hurdle. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the sibling render_set or what happens if a name does not match, so no explicit exclusions are offered.

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