Preview After Effects Render

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for added behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context by stating that it does not contact Adobe, enqueue, or render, clarifying the absence of external 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?

Two sentences deliver the action, scope constraints, and explicit non-behaviors with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the negative clarification is compact and valuable.

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 non-mutating preview tool, the annotations and output schema cover safety and return-value expectations, while the description covers scope and side-effect boundaries. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only high-level bounding language about composition and workspace directory but no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific operation ('Preview a bounded queue-only After Effects render request') with clear scope constraints: one named composition and an existing workspace output directory. It also explicitly states non-goals ('does not contact Adobe, enqueue, or render'), which cleanly distinguishes it from actual rendering/enqueueing tools.

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 clearly implies the tool is for previewing a queue request before any real enqueue or render, and the explicit negatives establish when not to use it. However, it does not name an alternative sibling like enqueue_after_effects_render, so the routing guidance is not fully explicit.

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