octane_save_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains convergence behavior (ceiling based on quality tier), the interplay between maxRenderTime and timeout_seconds, best-effort saving on timeout, and progressive output. However, it does not disclose whether the save actually writes a file to disk, what happens to existing files, or what the function returns beyond queuing a command.

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 concise, using three short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the main action. The following paragraphs add detail but avoid unnecessary fluff. Minor improvement could be more structured bullet points or clearer separation of parameter explanations.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides moderate context. It explains the core rendering behavior and key parameters but omits the path/width/height semantics and the nature of the 'queue' (synchronous? asynchronous?). The output schema exists but the description doesn't summarize what it returns. More detail would make it fully actionable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains quality presets (standard=30s, etc.) and mentions overrides for samples, min_samples, timeout_seconds, and max_render_time. It also explains progressive. However, it does not describe the path, width, or height parameters, leaving their meaning and defaults (if any) unclear. Thus, while helpful, it is incomplete for all 9 parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Queue a render-ready preview image save command.' It uses a specific verb ('queue' and 'save') and resource ('preview image'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like octane_review_preview (which likely reviews rather than saves) and octane_start_render (which starts a render but doesn't necessarily save a preview).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the quality parameter with convergence presets and the progressive parameter for an early low-spp frame. It explains overrides for samples, min_samples, timeout_seconds, and max_render_time. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like octane_start_render or octane_review_preview, leaving some ambiguity.

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