Render composition

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that it blocks until rendering finishes, which is important behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover side effects like file creation, potential failures, permissions required, or what happens if queued without rendering. The blocking behavior is a key disclosure but incomplete coverage.

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 that front-load the action and include the blocking behavior. No wasted words, very 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite sparse. It covers the blocking behavior but leaves out important context such as potential side effects (file writes), error handling, and how the render flag interacts with other parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all 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?

Clear verb (add/render) and resource (composition/render queue). It does distinguish itself from siblings like ae_list_compositions or ae_create_composition, but does not explicitly mention them. 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 some implied usage: adding to queue and optionally rendering, and it blocks. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other render-related tools, or when to use the render flag. No alternatives are named.

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