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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint=true by explaining the non-persistence explicitly and disclosing the shape of what comes back: per-change before/after values, which keys' privacy would flip, the primary-configuration flag with its meaning (live to game servers), and the contentHash needed to chain into update_configuration. That last detail is behaviorally important and appears nowhere in the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the dry-run framing and the return summary before the usage note. Minor slack in the "Optional: use it to check a change, or to show the user..." phrasing and in restating the update_configuration relationship, but nothing is bloated.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the return payload precisely enough (before/after, privacy flips, primary flag, contentHash) that an agent knows what it will get and how to feed the result into update_configuration. For a 5-parameter read-only preview tool this leaves nothing an agent would need missing.

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 schema already documents changes, privacy, projectId, environment and configurationId in detail, including the set/remove op semantics and the private-key explanation. The description mentions changes and privacy flips only in passing and adds no path syntax, ordering or limits beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Dry-run a configuration change without saving it") and immediately distinguishes itself from update_configuration by declaring it runs the same validation but persists nothing. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus its nearest sibling 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ("update_configuration runs the same validation and saves the change when it runs") and gives two concrete triggers: checking a change, or showing the user the before/after. The only gap is that it never says when not to reach for it — e.g. use get_configuration to simply read the current state — so the routing is clear against one sibling but not the whole config toolset.

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