render_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the async queueing behavior, job_id return, the heavy non-blocking nature of renders, and the wait=true blocking option. It could additionally mention side effects on output paths or failure behavior, but the core operational behavior is well disclosed.

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. The main action is front-loaded, the default queueing behavior comes immediately after, and the wait guidance closes with a practical tip. No filler or redundant verbiage.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough operational context: formats, default async behavior, job_id return, progress tracking, and when wait=true is appropriate. It doesn't describe error conditions or exact wait=true return shape, but the workflow an agent needs to call this tool successfully is clearly explained.

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 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter. The description adds a useful heuristic for wait (short clips) and clarifies the default queueing workflow, but it does not need to document each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Renderiza un proyecto/composición a MP4" and enumerates alternative formats. This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like snapshot_frames and list_jobs without requiring 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?

It explicitly states the default behavior (enqueues and returns a job_id), warns that rendering is heavy and should not block the request, and tells the agent to follow progress with get_job / wait_job. It also gives a concrete usage condition: "Usa wait=true para clips cortos." This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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