render_set_resolution

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

The annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the partial-update semantics: any omitted field is left unchanged. This is useful beyond the structured annotations, though return behavior and failure modes are not described.

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?

The description is compact, bilingual, and contains no filler. The primary action and the most important behavioral caveat are front-loaded in two short sentences.

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 simple mutation tool with three optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the purpose, parameter scope, and the key partial-update behavior. It omits only minor details such as positive value constraints or return values, which are unlikely to be critical given the annotations and simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented with pixel units and the pixelAspect default. The description adds cross-parameter semantics by stating that omitted parameters retain their current values, which is not encoded in the schema itself.

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 and resource: 'Set the render resolution' and lists the affected fields (width, height, pixelAspect). It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling render_* setters such as render_set_output or render_set_quality, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the render resolution needs to be set. It also provides a key usage rule: omitted fields remain unchanged. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no direct sibling duplicates this exact function, so the context is sufficient.

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