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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states nothing is saved, no approval request is created, delegates expand to live revisions, and – critically – webhook and other asynchronous blocks really call the endpoint or model. That last disclosure is the single most important operational fact and it is stated plainly. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't say what that means for retries/latency or whether the caller gets an error when an external call fails.

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 purpose and dry-run guarantee, then output shape, then step semantics. It is a dense single paragraph, however, and the enter/next/end_of_branch explanation is compressed into one long clause that rewards a second read.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden – and it does: outcome, deciding block, reason, escalation path, and per-step reporting with enter/next/end_of_branch semantics. Combined with the dry-run and external-call caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning for pipeline_key (delegate expansion, 'entry') and for how the blocks/sample pair is consumed, but nothing about default_ask_agent_owner or default_escalation_path beyond what the schema already documents.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Run a sample request through a set of blocks and report the outcome') and names the exact output fields, which immediately separates it from update_pipeline (persist) and get_pipeline (read). The dry-run nature is unmistakable.

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?

Clear context is given: pass the current blocks from get_pipeline to test what is active, and the preview walks current active revisions. It never explicitly rules out alternatives (e.g., 'do not use this to actually submit a request; use X'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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