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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them, that saving incurs no research or spend. It does not disclose idempotency, whether the preview expires, or what happens if the same hash is saved twice.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and no filler; the no-spend sentence earns its place. The terseness becomes a liability for a five-parameter mutation, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, including a nested mapping object, and the description covers only one of five parameters. An agent could not confidently construct a valid call from this definition alone.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the semantics and largely does not. It only touches preview_hash; preview_id vs. preview_hash, import_id, name, and especially the nested 'mapping' object are entirely unexplained.

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 and resource: it saves a reviewed preview as an imported list, keyed by preview hash. The preview/save distinction from preview_web_source is implied by 'the user reviewed', but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'a preview the user reviewed' implies the precondition that preview_web_source must have been called first, and 'Saving does not research or spend' hints at the cost model. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for re-previewing or discarding.

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