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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't describe what happens after addition (e.g., whether rendering starts automatically, if the queue persists across sessions, or if it requires 'start_render' to initiate). It also omits potential side effects like file system writes or performance impacts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., success confirmation, error handling, or queue status), behavioral nuances like idempotency or permissions, or how it integrates with other render tools (e.g., 'start_render'). Given the complexity of render operations and lack of structured context, more detail is needed.

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 fully documents all four parameters (compId, outputPath, outputModule, renderSettings) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for outputPath or default values for optional parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the target resource ('a composition to the render queue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'batch_render' or 'clear_render_queue' by focusing on single-composition queue addition rather than batch operations or queue management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other render-related tools beyond the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_render' for multiple compositions or 'start_render' to begin rendering. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open project or existing composition) or exclusions (e.g., not for modifying render settings after addition). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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