render_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses asynchronous behavior (poll job_status) and output details (absolute output path), and explains track_id semantics. However, it omits potential side effects, error handling, or impact on existing renders.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the track_id nuance is efficiently added. Every word earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations of project_id, request_id, tail_seconds, and rerender_tracks, as well as error/edge cases. The agent cannot fully understand how to construct a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains track_id (a stem with track inserts and without master effects). Required project_id and other params (request_id, tail_seconds, rerender_tracks) are unexplained, leaving the agent without needed semantics.

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 action ('Start offline WAV rendering of a fixed revision') with a clear resource. It also clarifies track_id behavior, which helps distinguish from batch_render, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides minimal context (offline rendering, fixed revision) and a follow-up action (poll job_status), but no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like batch_render. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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