batch_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: it runs headless without Designer, writes to a predictable output_dir/<sbsar>/<name> layout, and continues past failures with results reported in 'failed' and 'jobs'. It omits overwrite behavior, concurrency, and what the 'jobs' entries actually contain, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the data shape, output location, failure semantics, and the resolution caveat. Nothing is padding, though the ordering could put the resolution note closer to the parameter discussion.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behaviors (headless execution, partial failure, output layout) but leaves the return payload underspecified – 'jobs' is referenced but never explained – and never mentions bit_depth or output_format, which an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 compensate, and it does for part of the surface: it defines parameter_sets as a list of {name, parameters} and explains the resolution default for width/height. The other parameters – bit_depth, output_format, sbsar_paths, output_dir beyond the path template – get no added meaning, leaving several of seven parameters undocumented in both places.

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 names a concrete verb and resource – batch-rendering multiple .sbsar packages with multiple parameter sets – and the note 'No necesita Designer abierto' implicitly separates it from the graph-bound render_outputs sibling. It never names that sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 guidance is implied rather than explicit: it says Designer need not be running, which suggests this is the offline/headless path, and it tells the agent to supply width/height to avoid the 256x256 default. There is no direct statement of when to prefer this over render_outputs or export_sbsar, and no prerequisite list (e.g. sbsrender availability).

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