render_outputs

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: parameter validation ('Rechaza parametros que el archivo no exponga') and the fallback resolution of 256x256 when width/height are omitted — a silent failure mode an agent would otherwise get wrong. It stops short of stating overwrite behavior in output_dir, error modes, or what the call returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the headless capability, then dense follow-up lines each carrying distinct facts about parameter format, validation, bit depth, and resolution defaults. No filler sentences; the only minor cost is that the fallback-resolution warning is buried at the end.

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 10-parameter mutation-ish tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk unknowns (what gets rejected, what defaults apply). Gaps remain around 'usages'/'outputs' semantics and where/how files land in output_dir, but the essential calling information is present.

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 partially does: it defines the 'parameters' map shape (identifier: value, vectors as lists), enumerates bit_depth values (8, 16, 16f, 32f), and constrains width/height to powers of two. It says nothing about 'graph', 'usages', 'outputs', or 'output_format', leaving four of ten parameters with no meaning beyond their titles.

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: 'Renderiza los mapas de un .sbsar con sbsrender', plus the notable constraint that Designer need not be open. This is clearly a rendering tool operating on an existing packed file, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling batch_render or cook_sbs, so an agent must infer which rendering path to pick.

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?

Implies usage through the 'No necesita Designer abierto' remark and the note that unexposed parameters are rejected, which tells the agent it can run headless against a packaged file. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance relative to batch_render, cook_sbs, or export_sbsar — the primary ambiguity for this toolset.

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