Render the video (background job)

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly (mutation), not idempotent. Description adds that it runs in the background and returns immediately, which is critical behavioral info. Could mention if there are any side effects besides the render file, but overall solid.

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 sentences with no fluff. First sentence states action, second describes behavior, third gives usage guidance. Highly efficient.

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?

Ties into the pipeline well with explicit before/after instructions. Lacks parameter doc, but the workflow context compensates. No output schema mentioned, but follow-up tool covers it.

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 single parameter 'slug' has no description in schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what it is. This is a significant gap; agent cannot know what value to provide.

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 verb 'Start' and the resource 'Remotion render', and specifies the output file. It distinguishes from siblings by describing the background nature and ties into the pipeline with sibling tool project_status.

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?

Explicitly says to use after voiceover finished and then call project_status. Provides clear timing and follow-up, with no ambiguity.

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