blender_render_set_resolution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Set the render resolution.' It does not state whether this affects subsequent renders, overwrites existing settings, or requires any scene state. The mutation effect is implied but not explained.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a simple setter with a fully documented schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any mention of how this setting is used by rendering tools, which would help an agent sequence it correctly. No output schema exists, but for a setter that is acceptable.

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 the parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how 'percentage' interacts with width/height or whether all parameters are required. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('render resolution'), so an agent can tell this tool is for configuring output resolution. It distinguishes itself from sibling render tools like blender_render_set_engine and blender_render_image by naming 'resolution' explicitly, though it does not elaborate on scope.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool relative to alternatives, such as whether to call it before blender_render_image or blender_render_animation. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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