render_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and falls well short. 'Start' hints at an async/long-running operation, but it never says whether a job ID is returned, whether the project must be persisted first, whether prior render output is overwritten, or what permissions/limits apply.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for an action tool.

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 action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque nested object parameter, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what the call returns, how to supply project data, or how progress is tracked.

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 100% and there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema text 'Project data to render', which is especially weak because 'project' is an opaque nested object with additionalProperties {} and no documented shape.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('start rendering a video project'), which is enough to separate it from a plain status reader like get_render_status. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_render_status for checking progress, create_video_project for setup). Usage is only implied by the word 'render'. No preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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