resolve_queue_render

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, leaving description to carry behavioral burden. Description discloses that it adds a job and optionally starts it, which is truthful. However, it does not elaborate on side effects like state changes or behavior of repeated calls, but overall adequately describes the 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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., having a project open or render settings configured) and does not explain the idempotency_key field. It is adequate but not complete.

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 description must compensate. Only the 'start' parameter is partially explained ('optionally start only that job'), but 'idempotency_key' is not addressed. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool adds a render job from current settings and optionally starts it, using specific verb 'add' and resource 'render job'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_configure_render (configuration) and resolve_render_status (status check).

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 description implies usage after configuring render settings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_configure_render or resolve_render_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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