render

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavior beyond them — headless operation keeps the interface usable, live mode blocks the UI, the no-script path captures unsaved changes, and the frame range defaults to the script's. It omits whether existing frames on disk are overwritten and what happens when a frame is missing.

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 action and the verification outcome, then two sentences covering the mode split. Nearly every clause carries information. Minor waste in line-broken phrasing and the trailing one-liner about frame range that could sit with the other parameter notes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool that writes frames to disk, the absence of any overwrite, existing-output, or partial-failure statement (continue_on_error is never mentioned) leaves a real gap given seven parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains script (snapshot of live script including unsaved changes), mode="live", and that first/last default to the script's frame range. It says nothing about step or continue_on_error, and write_node is only named in passing.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Render a Write node and check that the expected frames exist on disk.' That distinguishes it from inspection siblings like get_node or get_script_info. It does not explicitly contrast with preview_frame, so sibling routing is only implicit.

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 selection context for the mode parameter: no script renders a snapshot of the live script, mode="live" renders inside the open Nuke and blocks it. That is actionable guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over preview_frame or other siblings, and offers no exclusions.

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