Photo render

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that rendering can take minutes with a default 600s timeout, that width/height are restored afterwards (a side effect), that maxSize downscales, and that saveTo keeps a full-resolution copy. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before committing to a long-running call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the sibling alternative held to the last sentence. Efficient overall, though the middle sentence stacks several parentheticals (scene source, size restore) that read densely.

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?

For an 8-parameter, deeply nested, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key behaviors, setup prerequisites and the long-running nature. The only gap is how the returned image is delivered (inline vs. path), which it leaves implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: where scene names come from (get_3d_view rendering.scenes), the output-size behavior with restore semantics, and the default timeout value. It does not detail maxSize/saveTo beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Photo-renders the current 3D view ... with Archicad's rendering engine and returns the image') and it explicitly distinguishes itself from capture_view, the nearest sibling for the same 3D window. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both the setup path ('Optionally set up the camera first ... same fields as set_3d_view') and the alternative with its selecting condition ('For quick looks use capture_view of the 3D window instead'). It also routes the agent to get_3d_view for scene names.

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