render_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature (returns immediately) and suggests polling, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or constraints like whether rendering can be started if already in progress.

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 concise with three sentences and front-loaded action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points), but there is no fluff.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks return value information, error conditions, and preconditions (e.g., requires a project to be open). It is incomplete for a tool that spawns asynchronous work.

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%, so description must explain parameters. It describes job_ids' effect (omit to render all) but does not mention the interactive parameter at all, leaving it entirely undocumented.

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 tool starts rendering, specifies that omitting job_ids renders the whole queue, and distinguishes itself from siblings like render_stop, render_status, and render_job_add by focusing on initiation and immediate return.

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 implies usage by explaining that rendering the whole queue occurs when job_ids is omitted and advises polling render_status for progress, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like render_job_add.

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