render_videos

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world), so the description's added value is the output location and the 'Can take long' duration warning, which is genuinely useful for timeout/async planning. It omits whether existing files are overwritten, progress reporting, or cancelability, which matter for a long-running write operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by the runtime caveat. No filler; the only weakness is that brevity here comes at the cost of omitting necessary parameter context.

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 not be explained, but for a multi-parameter, long-running mutation with zero schema documentation, the description leaves critical gaps: parameter meaning, overwrite behavior, and setup prerequisites are all absent.

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?

All four parameters (width, height, sampling, transparency) have 0% schema description coverage and defaults that are opaque sentinels (-1, false). The description says nothing about them, leaving an agent unable to know that -1 likely means 'use project settings' or what sampling controls.

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: rendering the animation into the video output folder, with a pointer to where that folder is defined (render_get: videos.outputPath). This implicitly separates it from render_image/render_images (still vs. sequence), though the sibling distinction is never made explicit.

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 guidance on when to choose this over render_image or render_images, no prerequisites (cameras set via render_set_cameras, passes, timeline range), and no note about what happens if a render is already in progress. Usage can only be inferred from the phrase 'the animation'.

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