cavalry_add_to_render_queue

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 briefly states that the tool adds to the render queue, implying a mutation, but it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what happens if the composition is already queued, or if any permissions are needed. It adds basic context but leaves gaps for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core function and key parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more descriptive without becoming verbose.

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 has only 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary action. However, it omits important context such as whether the tool assumes the composition is already loaded or what the return value (if any) indicates about success. More detail on preconditions or error states would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions 'format or destination', which maps to the two parameters but does not add deeper meaning (e.g., default behavior when outputPath is omitted, or supported format details beyond the enum list). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Adds') and clearly identifies the resource ('active composition' and 'Cavalry Render Queue'). It also mentions the configurable options ('format or destination'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like cavalry_render_queue or cavalry_run_script. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, and 'active composition' could be clarified further.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to queue a render), but it provides no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. For example, it doesn't mention that cavalry_render_queue might be for managing the queue itself. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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