set_hydra_renderer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers key behavioral traits: non-blocking, asynchronous convergence, and the need for polling and delayed screenshot. It does not cover permissions or side effects on other viewport state, but the async behavior is well disclosed.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and valid values, followed by essential behavioral context. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers async behavior and follow-up steps. The missing explanation for the optional 'viewer' parameter is the main gap, but overall it is sufficient for a focused setter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives valid renderer values ('xpu', 'cpu', 'vk', 'storm', or exact name), which is useful, but it says nothing about the optional 'viewer' parameter, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('LOP viewport renderer') and enumerates valid values, making the tool's action clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling set_viewport_renderer, so sibling differentiation is only implied by 'LOP viewport'.

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?

It provides clear context: does not restart or wait, XPU converges asynchronously, and directs the agent to poll list_hydra_renderers and then capture_screenshot later. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative naming, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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