add-to-render-queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that compName is 'most reliable' and that templates must exist, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if comp not found or template missing), whether existing output files are overwritten, or required permissions for adding to the render queue. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 three short sentences, with the purpose stated first. Every sentence adds necessary context: purpose, selection mechanism, and prerequisite. No extraneous words. Excellent conciseness.

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 description adequately covers composition selection and template requirement, but it lacks information about return values, error handling, and confirmation that the item was added to the queue. Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, some additional context about the outcome would improve completeness.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the priority between compName and compIndex, the fallback to active comp, and the prerequisite of template existence. This extra guidance justifies above the baseline of 3.

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: 'Add a composition to the After Effects render queue and configure its output.' It identifies the specific resource (composition) and distinguishes from siblings like 'render-aerender' (external) and 'start-render' (likely begins rendering). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings like 'render-queue' or 'start-render', which slightly reduces precision.

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 on selecting a composition: prioritize compName, fallback to compIndex, or leave both empty for active comp. It also notes that 'templates must already exist', a key prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool versus alternatives, but the selection guidance is helpful.

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