Render editor project

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that rendering actually happens in the user's browser, that the job returns an openUrl that must be opened, that the editor uploads the MP4 and marks the job done, that a login on vividai.tv is required, and that phone browsers can abort long renders in the background. None of that is recoverable from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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 action is front-loaded, followed by the render flow, the polling pointer, and the prerequisite caveat — each sentence carries new information. It is dense but not padded; the parenthetical about openBrowser is the only mild repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and does so (openUrl must be opened for the job to progress). The asynchronous contract, the completion signal, and environment prerequisites are all covered, which is what an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 80%, so parameters are largely self-documenting. The description only reinforces openBrowser behavior; it adds no guidance on wait vs. polling, timeoutSec trade-offs, or how the name parameter affects the output file.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Queue a render (MP4 export) of a saved video-editor project' — and implicitly separates itself from vivid_render_status, which it names as the polling counterpart. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the follow-up action ('Poll with vivid_render_status') and prerequisites (must be logged in on vividai.tv, preferably a desktop browser). It doesn't state when a render should not be queued or how it relates to vivid_get_editor_project / vivid_create_editor_project, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guide.

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