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

Annotations declare readOnly/destructive=false, and the description substantially extends them: the URL embeds an access token, must be shared exactly as returned, is view-only with no Floot login, live-updates during edits, and the result also exposes a sandbox API base that is NOT user-facing. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey, with no contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry real signal (token behavior, live updates, sandbox API distinction). It is dense and somewhat over-long, and the trailing 'Floot hosts the app' framing sentence is only marginally load-bearing, but there is little true filler.

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, yet the description explains what the result contains (preview card, preview link, sandbox API base) and how each should be used. Combined with the usage and security notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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 0% and the sole parameter (projectId) is never mentioned in the description. However, projectId is a self-evident, unambiguous single required argument, so the practical risk is minimal. Not a perfect score because the description technically leaves the parameter to the schema.

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: 'Show the user a live preview card and return the preview link.' It goes further, distinguishing itself from create_project (whose result already includes the card) and from publish_app (production publishing). An agent can place it precisely among the many siblings.

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?

Explicit timing guidance ('On an EXISTING project this is typically called EARLY, before the first change'), an exclusion ('It is not needed right after create_project'), and a named alternative for the production case ('publish_app publishes it to production'). Covers when, when-not, and the alternative.

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