Photorealistic render (Render AI)

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful billing context ('Costs 1 credit per variation'), but says nothing about latency, async/polling behavior, or whether the source image is modified.

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 tight sentences, zero padding, with the transformation front-loaded and the cost caveat second. Nothing needs trimming.

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 7-parameter, cost-incurring generation tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it does and what it costs, but omits the operational picture – notably whether results are returned inline or require retrieval via the sibling luw_get_result.

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 100%, so every parameter including engine, precision and reference_images is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the per-variation billing note, which is the baseline expectation when the schema carries the semantics.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: it transforms a 3D view, CAD/BIM screenshot, clay render or basic visualization into a photorealistic architectural render. That is far more specific than the title alone, though it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like luw_sketch_to_render or luw_interior_design.

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?

Listing accepted input types (3D view, CAD/BIM screenshot, clay render, basic visualization) implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as luw_sketch_to_render or luw_generate_image.

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