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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which sounds alarming for a 'preview', but the description clarifies that 'nothing is removed' and that only a preview is stored. This is meaningful added context beyond the annotations, resolving a potential misinterpretation. It also discloses the $0.05 cost and API key requirement, which annotations do not.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the operation, the effect, and the key safety point ('nothing is removed'), then appends cost and auth requirements in parentheses. No wasted words.

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?

Covers the operation, the non-destructive nature, the cost, and the auth requirement, which addresses the main behavioral unknowns given a moderate schema and an output schema that presumably explains the return. It does not explain the relationship to delete_moment or the preview's lifespan, but it is nearly complete.

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 67%; the description adds no parameter guidance beyond the schema. request_id and idempotency_key are documented in the schema itself, and moment_id is simply required. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for most parameters.

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 ('Read a Moment and linked impact and store a reviewed deletion preview') and immediately distinguishes itself from the real deletion tool by clarifying 'nothing is removed'. An agent can tell it apart from delete_moment and preview_destructive_change without opening the schema.

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 implicit workflow is clear: this is the preview step before delete_moment, and the description says nothing is removed, which routes agents here rather than to the destructive sibling. It does not explicitly name delete_moment or state when the preview is mandatory, leaving some inference.

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