Render Start

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and non-read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it saves the project first, runs as a background job, and details what verify/deliver/draft/software do. It still omits what gets destroyed or overwritten and permission requirements.

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-loads the core action and packs parameter semantics compactly, but the run-on colon-separated clauses and terse shorthand reduce readability. Every clause is informative, so little 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 13-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow (save, start, poll), the whole-comp vs work-area scope, and most optional flags. It falls short only on overwrite and explicit parameter naming for the required fields.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does for most params (om_template, rs_template, software, verify, deliver, loudness, audio_only, start, end, draft). Only overwrite and the obvious required comp_id/output_path are left unexplained.

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: it saves the project and starts a background aerender job. It also names the sibling to poll afterward (render_status with the job_id), letting an agent distinguish it from render_status and render_cancel without opening a 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 clear operational context and explicitly routes the agent to render_status for polling. However, it does not state when not to use it (e.g. preview_frame/review_motion for quick looks) or any preconditions, so exclusions are left implicit.

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