Submit one v2 render

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the return is a single object rather than the legacy array, a 202 is possible yet advisory errors/warnings must still be read, and the caller must not auto-poll, resubmit, or download. These are concrete async/idempotency and follow-up constraints that the destructiveHint/not-idempotent annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then two tightly packed sentences covering return shape and post-call rules. Every clause carries information, though the phrasing is compressed enough to read as terse.

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 paid, destructive async submission with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: single-object return, possible 202 with advisory messages, and forbidden follow-ups. It stops short of detailing what the returned object contains or how to retrieve results, but 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, payload, template_id, elements, etc. in detail. The description only restates the template-vs-raw-elements choice, adding no format or syntax meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is warranted.

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 (submit) and resource (a single v2 render), scoped to 'from template or raw top-level RenderScript.' It also separates itself from create_legacy_render by naming the v2 path and by 'Returns one object, not legacy array,' so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

'Confirmed paid' implies the confirm=true precondition for a paid mutation, and 'never auto-poll, resubmit or download' sets post-call boundaries. However, it never explicitly routes to alternatives like validate_render or create_legacy_render within the description itself; that routing only appears in the schema text, leaving usage 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.