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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the critical safety trait ('The agent is NOT deleted'), which prevents an agent from treating this as a mutation, but it says nothing about what the preview returns, whether the id must exist, or permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the non-destructive guarantee and the call-ordering directive front-loaded where they matter most.

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 should ideally convey what the preview presents to the user. 'Show what would happen' is vague about return content (impact summary? affected resources? warnings?), leaving a gap for an agent that must surface the result.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, but the description's repeated phrase 'an agent' makes clear the id identifies the agent to be previewed. It adds minimal syntax or format detail beyond that implication, so the low coverage is only partially compensated.

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 what would happen if you delete an agent') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_agent. An agent can tell it apart from the many delete_* tools in the sibling list 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?

Gives an unambiguous directive: 'ALWAYS call this first and surface the result to the user before calling delete_agent.' It names the alternative tool and the ordering condition, leaving nothing to inference.

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