render_add_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the precondition, the action of queueing, and the return value (job ID). It does not explicitly state that the job does not start automatically, but the separate render_start sibling and the concept of a queue make this implicit.

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 short sentences, action first, includes return type. No wasted words. The front-loaded verb and resource make it immediately scannable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema present), the description covers prerequisites, action, and result. It is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to call it 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema requires no explanation. The description correctly references 'current settings' without needing to enumerate them, and the baseline for no params is 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'Add' and identifies the resource: 'current timeline to the render queue with current settings'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling render tools like render_start (which starts rendering) or render_delete_job (which deletes jobs).

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 states prerequisites: 'The timeline must be set (Deliver page) and render settings must be configured before calling this tool.' This gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the precondition implies sequencing relative to configuration tools.

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