render-project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that logs are saved locally, that the operation is asynchronous (poll get-render), and that the AE version must match the project. It doesn't cover error handling or return details, but for a render-start command it conveys the key side effects.

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 concise sentences, with the core action and key constraints front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits explanations for most parameters, return behavior, and failure modes. The useful bits (no bridge, logs, polling) are not enough to make this tool safely callable.

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 the description must explain parameters. It only references 'saved .aep project' (projectPath) but says nothing about composition, outputPath, or the other 4 parameters. This leaves the agent guessing at what values are expected.

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 aerender for a saved .aep project, explicitly distinguishing it from a bridge-based render (without an open bridge). It also names the polling tool (get-render) and a version prerequisite, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives a clear condition for use ('without an open bridge') and directs the agent to poll get-render afterward. It does not explicitly name alternatives like render-composition when a bridge is open, but the implied headless workflow is reasonably clear.

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