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 transparently explains the comp-selection precedence and the template prerequisite, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the render starts automatically, how existing render-queue items are affected, or what the return value or error behavior is—gaps that matter for a mutation tool.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by selection rules and a necessary prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core task and key decision logic (comp selection, template existence). It could more explicitly state that this tool only queues/configures and that a separate sibling such as start-render is needed to actually start rendering, but the schema handles parameter details and the overall picture is largely complete.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by framing compName as most reliable, clarifying compIndex as a fallback, and explaining the active-comp behavior when both are empty. It also reinforces that templates must pre-exist, which directly applies to the two template 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 function: 'Add a composition to the After Effects render queue and configure its output.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the comp-selection details distinguish it from sibling tools like start-render or render-queue, which focus on different stages of the rendering workflow.

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 concrete selection guidance: compName is 'most reliable', compIndex is 1-based and used only if compName is omitted, and leaving both empty uses the active comp. It also notes the prerequisite that templates must already exist. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like start-render or render-status, but the intended usage is reasonably clear.

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