resolve_add_render_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists parameters and defaults, but does not disclose key behaviors such as whether the job starts immediately, whether it requires a loaded timeline, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a queue-adding operation.

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?

The description is a clean docstring with a front-loaded purpose and a concise parameter list. Every line earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is structured for quick scanning.

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?

The description covers all parameters adequately but misses workflow context: e.g., that this only queues a job and does not start rendering, or how to combine it with resolve_start_render. With an output schema present, the return value is likely documented elsewhere, but the missing operational context keeps this from being complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose and default semantics (e.g., '0 = use project setting', 'Leave empty for project default'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names.

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 opening line clearly states the action ('Add a custom render job to the render queue') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_start_render by focusing on adding to the queue, though it does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_start_render, resolve_quick_export, or resolve_render_for_youtube. It only describes the parameters, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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