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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations: it discloses the up-to-90-second latency, that warnings are non-blocking, that nothing is persisted, and that output includes a diff since the starting version plus cross-page references for changed tables/storage keys. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 the core action and the 'without saving anything' qualifier, followed by result semantics and a latency note. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the third sentence is somewhat packed but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and a single fully-documented parameter, the description covers what the agent needs: what is checked, that nothing is persisted, that warnings are advisory, what extra diff/reference data appears, and the long runtime. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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% and session_id is fully documented in the schema (including its provenance from studio_open_page), so the description does not need to restate it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Run every check studio_save will run on the open page'), enumerates the check categories, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling studio_save by noting it saves nothing. An agent can distinguish it from studio_save without opening either 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?

Usage is clearly implied and tied to the sibling: it is a dry-run of studio_save, and 'Warnings do not block studio_save' tells the agent how to interpret results before saving. It stops short of an explicit 'call this before saving' instruction or a when-not-to-use condition, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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