Render an adapted library example

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It details the behavioral chain: fetches example, saves as template, dry-runs variables, queues render, and returns jobId and templateId. It also notes credit spending and layout preservation. Missing explicit error handling, but sufficient.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences front-load the value proposition ('EASIEST premium render path') and cover all critical behavioral and usage details. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Describes return values (jobId + templateId) and process steps. References sibling tool for variable discovery. No output schema exists, but description compensates. Could mention async nature more explicitly, but still thorough.

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?

Description adds meaning beyond the 100% schema coverage by explaining that variables should come from start_from_example's adaptationMap.variables and that overrides are optional. It also warns about unknown variable names, providing extra context not in schema.

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 it is the 'EASIEST premium render path' for adapting library examples with new variable values. It explains the process (fetch example, save as template, dry-run variables, queue render) and distinguishes itself as a premium path, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_render.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Use start_from_example first to see the variable names and defaults' and to 'Provide only declared variables; unknown names are reported.' This provides clear contextual guidance, though it lacks when-not-to-use cases or alternative tools.

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