render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the refusal condition, the text-layout measurement pass, loudness mastering, delivery checks, preservation of the previous film on failure, and a single retry for transient renderer failures. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a long-running mutation.

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 dense but well front-loaded: the action and output path come first, followed by preconditions, process, failure behavior, and runtime warning. Every sentence adds useful operational information without repetition.

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 long-running render tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers refusal behavior, write destination, failure handling, retry behavior, and runtime expectations. The main remaining gap is that the single required parameter is not given semantic explanation.

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% and the description never explains the sole 'project' parameter. It implies the project is the film being rendered, but does not clarify accepted identifiers, format, or source. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render the whole film to out/film.mp4'. It distinguishes the tool from preview by noting 'Takes minutes: preview first' and by referencing 'the same pass as preview sweep=true', so an agent can tell what this does and how it differs from the sibling preview tool.

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 gives clear usage direction: 'refuses on check errors' and 'Takes minutes: preview first', which explicitly steers the agent to preview before rendering. It stops short of naming all alternatives or stating a complete when-not-to-use policy, but the critical sequencing guidance is present.

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