render_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the render runs in the background, returns a render_id immediately, and requires polling for completion. This is essential for an asynchronous tool. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files or error cases, but for a render tool this is acceptable.

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 only three sentences, with the purpose stated first, followed by the key async behavior and how to retrieve the result. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (async, needs polling) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the workflow by naming get_render_result. It does not explain what happens when a scene is missing or how errors are surfaced, but for a straightforward render operation with two simple parameters, this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% (both fmt and output_path are described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully describes the parameters, the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb 'Render' and the resource 'current scene to a video file', which differentiates it from sibling tools like save_frame (which captures a frame) and get_render_result (which polls for results). It also explicitly notes the asynchronous behavior, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a video output and want to avoid MCP timeouts. It explicitly instructs to poll get_render_result() with the returned render_id, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single frame, use save_frame).

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