render_gif

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly. It discloses resolution, loop behavior, memory cost (528 MB peak), a verification date and method, the known cause of prior failures (/v2/assets not supporting GIF), and the one unverified aspect (whether the feed actually plays the animation). This is far beyond typical.

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 longer than ideal but every sentence adds distinct value—purpose, recipes, verification, failure cause, cost, and alternative guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and tapers off into details. No wasted words, though it could be tightened slightly without losing 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers what, when, why, cost, failure modes, and caveats. The only missing piece is an explicit statement of the return value/artifact structure, though it indirectly mentions the artifact name. For a render tool, this is sufficiently 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?

The schema provides only a bare 'spec' object with 0% coverage. The description compensates by naming the two recipes and their fields ('tool_pairing': brands[], connector, caption_bottom; 'metric_counter': value, unit, prefix, label, caption_bottom), giving meaning to the otherwise opaque parameter. It could go further by explicitly mapping these to the spec object, but it already adds substantial value.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Rend un lead magnet ANIME en GIF (1080x1080, boucle infinie)' – a specific verb, resource, and format. It also lists the two supported recipes, immediately distinguishing it from render_visual, which is explicitly referenced as the fallback for non-animated needs.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'reste sur render_visual quand l'animation n'apporte rien' clearly states when NOT to use this tool. It also details the two recipes for the spec object, telling the agent how to structure requests for different animation types.

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