Graphite batch renderer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses sequential execution, GPU-heavy resource behavior, per-item failure isolation, the fact that the call only errors if all variants fail, artifact naming, and outputDir defaulting. This is well beyond a mere 'renders variants' statement.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core operation and constraints, the second covers artifact output, and the third covers failure semantics. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a strong operational contract: limits, ordering, failure behavior, output location, and error condition. The exact per-item report structure is not specified, but the essential information needed to call and interpret the outcome is present.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for variants ('full params object'), templateId/index artifact naming, format in the filename, and outputDir default. Width and height are left implicit, but their purpose is reasonably inferable from the render context.

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 specific verb ('render') and resource ('parametric variants of ONE template') and clearly marks this as a batch operation distinct from the single-render sibling. The '2..20' range and 'ONE template' scope prevent confusion with graphite_render, graphite_list_nodes, and graphite_validate_doc.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when rendering multiple parametric variants of a single template sequentially. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the batch/one-template framing gives clear context.

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