render

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that rendering is a non-mutating visual operation ('to an image you can see'), that only=True hides content, and that annotate only draws on the image — but it says nothing about resolution limits, whether the live document can be modified in any way, or rendering cost.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is dense, parameter-relevant guidance with no filler. The middle section is a run-on that mixes area selection with annotation semantics, but nothing is wasted.

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 a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return medium (an image), the scoping options, and the two tricky parameters. It is adequate to call the tool correctly, with only width_px/background and any behavioral limits unaddressed.

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 0%, and the description compensates well: it gives the region_mm coordinate order [x0, y0, x1, y1], the around/margin relationship, the only flag's effect, and non-obvious annotate string forms ('children:<id>', 'top'). Only width_px and background are left entirely undocumented, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Render the LIVE document to an image you can see,' which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like export, outline, or inspect that also produce views of the document.

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?

It gives clear workflow guidance for one option ('annotate ... the fastest way to learn which id is which') and explains the region-selection choice between region_mm and around. It never states when to use render versus export/inspect/save_copy, so tool selection against siblings is left to inference.

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