framerudiments_render

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description stays consistent with them. Beyond that, it discloses the async retained-job model and, importantly, that the base effect flag is write while inference/download effects are conditional and must be inspected via danceflow_component - context the annotations alone cannot convey. It stops short of saying whether re-rendering overwrites prior artifacts, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the job contract, then the effect flags - no filler. The density borders on jargon ("source-bound", "retained background job"), but nothing is wasted.

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 shape need not be restated, and the async/polling and permissions guidance is present. For a mutation tool with a nested four-field argument object and multiple near-sibling tools, the missing parameter semantics and missing when-to-use contrast leave meaningful gaps.

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 schema description coverage at 50% and a nested arguments object holding project, output, crf, and preset, the description adds almost nothing: "source-bound project" loosely maps to project, but output, crf, and preset semantics go unexplained in both schema and prose. Only the permissions object carries its own schema description, so the burden the description should have carried is largely unmet.

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?

"Render a source-bound project with media and verification artifacts" gives a concrete verb plus resource and implies asynchronous production work rather than planning. It does not explicitly separate itself from close siblings such as framerudiments_plan or framerudiments_preflight, so an agent must infer the ordering.

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 supplies the post-call path clearly ("poll danceflow_job_status") and points to danceflow_component for conditional effect checks, which is useful routing. However, it never states when to choose render instead of framerudiments_plan, framerudiments_preflight, or framerudiments_demo, so preconditions for invoking it are left implicit.

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