create_render

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds format coverage but omits rendering behavior that matters here — whether the render is produced asynchronously, that a render ID/status is returned, or any rate/cost implications for video (duration max 90000ms).

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action and supported formats front-loaded. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description never says what the call returns or that the result may need to be polled via get_render/list_renders. Given the rich schema, the parameter side is covered, but the post-call workflow gap leaves it only adequate.

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% and the schema documents all 13 parameters in detail, including the nested layers/animation object. The description's format list duplicates the format enum rather than adding meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a render') and enumerates the output media types (image, video, PDF) with concrete formats. This is clearly separable from siblings like merge_renders, get_render, and create_upload without opening any schema.

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?

'This is the main tool for generating content' implies when to use it, but gives no exclusions or alternatives — e.g. when to prefer merge_renders for combining renders or get_template_layers for inspecting a template first. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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