request_render

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the call is queued rather than synchronous, it is priced by a measured cost model ("kind rung.N"), and the queue row is authoritative until the engine lands. That is genuine async/cost disclosure an agent needs. It still omits permissions, failure modes, and how to observe completion, and the disclosure is wrapped in metaphor that slows comprehension.

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?

Purpose and rung levels are front-loaded, but "the engine that renders it is the recipe half's seat, so until it lands the queue row is the honest state" spends a full sentence on ornamental phrasing for a simple idea (rendering is asynchronous; poll the queue). Dense project-specific vocabulary reduces parseability rather than adding information.

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 4-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers only the rung scale and the queued nature of the request. It leaves entry_paths semantics, branch semantics, cost/quoting mechanics, and any notion of what a successful call returns or how to check status undocumented.

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 partially: `rung` is fully demystified (1/2/3 with distinct visual fidelity) and `seed` is tied to reproducibility matching a prediction. `entry_paths` and `branch` receive no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters as bare typed fields.

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 opening clause gives a concrete verb and resource ("Request a render or preview of entries") and the parenthetical defines the three rung levels concretely (fast layout / mid with lighting and materials / full), which is real semantic content. Sibling differentiation is absent, and the second half drifts into opaque house jargon ("core's door", "recipe half's seat"), but the core purpose is still recoverable.

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 statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use. The only guidance is a consistency constraint ("Price a sealed prediction against the SAME rung and seed you render"), which implies a companion prediction flow but never names a tool from the sibling list or explains the choice between render and preview.

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