render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the operation is long-running, that it returns a job id (async), and that it enforces a confirmed-review gate. It does not describe what artifact is produced (output file/path) or where the rendered result lands, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the async contract, then the gating condition. No filler; the wording earns its place, though the confirmation rule could be slightly more compact.

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 annotations or output schema, the definition covers the action and gating but not the follow-through: it never tells the agent to poll job_status for results, and with 0% schema coverage the three undocumented parameters remain unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only 'confirmed' meaningfully (the review gate), while talk, project, and the required project_dir are never described, leaving the required-path parameter completely opaque.

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 gives a specific verb (render) plus the resource (the reviewed cut list), and even names the implementation (ffmpeg), which makes it distinguishable from siblings like analyze, plan, and verify. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any named sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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 states a concrete precondition: set confirmed=true only after the user explicitly said to render, and explains the consequence of omitting it (rostrum refuses unreviewed cuts). That is clear gating guidance, though it does not point to a sibling workflow (e.g., list_cuts or decide) that must precede rendering.

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