render_photoreal_submit

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the non-blocking return, that the renderer runs in the background, the terminal status values, the polling contract, and the hard prerequisites (Render addon + renderer binary, docs reference). This is exactly the behavioral context an async submission tool needs.

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 async return, followed by usage routing and then prerequisites — a sensible ordering. It is slightly long, and the 'Same arguments' sentence earns little given the schema gap, but no sentence is filler.

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 async job tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return shape, the polling path, and prerequisites — nearly everything an agent needs to call it. The remaining weakness is that per-parameter meaning is left to a cross-reference.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only offers 'Same arguments as render_photoreal,' deferring all semantics (what handle/view/material/renderer mean and their formats) to a sibling rather than explaining any of them here.

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+resource ('Start a photorealistic render asynchronously') and immediately identifies the sibling it replaces ('rather than render_photoreal'). The return shape {job_id, status} is named up front, so an agent can distinguish this from the synchronous variant without opening the 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?

Explicitly says when to use this instead of render_photoreal ('long renders — heavy materials/renderers, large images') and why ('keeps the worker responsive'). It also routes the follow-up action precisely: poll render_job(job_id) until 'done' or 'failed'.

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