ilovevideoeditor_render_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that a payload is submitted and a job ID is returned. It does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, asynchronous behavior, validation, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, similar to the update_drive example which scored 2.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. There is no wasted wording, and it conveys all necessary information in a clear structure.

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 tool has a simple input schema (one object param) and no output schema. The description mentions receiving a job ID, which is the return value, but it does not explain subsequent steps (e.g., checking render status or retrieving the download URL) which are likely needed given the sibling tools. This gap prevents it from being fully complete, but for a basic submit-and-get-ID operation, it is sufficient. A 3 reflects the missing 'what next' information.

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 100% with the only parameter 'videoJSON' described as 'A valid VideoJSON scene definition'. The description adds the qualifier 'raw' suggesting it expects direct JSON rather than a reference, but this adds little beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no additional parameter detail is provided in the description, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Submit a raw VideoJSON payload to the iLoveVideoEditor render queue and receive a job ID.' It uses a specific verb ('submit'), specifies the resource (raw VideoJSON payload), and the outcome (job ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_template, which presumably uses templates rather than raw JSON.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: when you have a raw VideoJSON payload to render. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context from sibling tools (e.g., render_template) makes the choice fairly clear. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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