AIfra — temporary static previews

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond the annotations: 'No backend/build,' 'Requires explicit consent,' 'returns an approval link, not a published URL,' and 'User must confirm in their browser.' This communicates the two-step approval flow and the fact that no published output is produced immediately. The annotations provide little behavioral detail, so the description carries that burden effectively.

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?

The description is compact and every clause earns its place. It front-loads the core action, then gives the input constraint, the no-backend caveat, and the critical approval-link behavior. No filler or repetition is present.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and complex nested parameters, the description covers the essential operational context: one-of input modes, required consent, approval-link response, and user confirmation step. It does not elaborate on follow-up actions after approval or field-level requirements, but the input schema covers those details. The main gap is that it does not point to get_operation_status or get_preview_status for tracking the approval flow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the conceptual one-of relationship among files, archive_base64, and archive, and it ties 'explicit consent' to the required accept_terms field. However, it does not describe the nested structures within files or archive, leaving some parameter meaning to the schema property names alone. This is adequate but not complete.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a new temporary static preview.' It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting this is a new preview, adding 'No backend/build' and clarifying it returns an approval link rather than a published URL. This clearly separates it from delete_preview, update_preview, and the status tools.

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 description gives clear context for when to invoke this tool: to create a new temporary static preview. It also provides concrete input-mode guidance with 'Supply exactly one of small files, ZIP archive_base64, or an allowed provider ZIP file reference.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds the key behavioral fact that deletion is deferred until the owner confirms in the browser with the management key, which goes beyond the structured annotations and is important for agent expectations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the main action, the second gives the essential caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive action, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient: required parameters are declared, the destructive nature is annotated, and the browser-confirmation caveat is stated. It does not mention return values or how to check resulting operation status, but that is a minor gap given the sibling get_operation_status.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining preview_id and confirm_delete. It only indirectly references an 'existing preview' and owner confirmation, and never explains that confirm_delete must be passed as true or that preview_id must match the pv_ pattern.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Prepare deletion') and resource ('an existing preview'), making it clear this concerns the deletion lifecycle rather than creation, updates, or status checks. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Prepare deletion of an existing preview' and the caveat that deletion only occurs after owner confirmation clearly indicate this is the initiation step of a deletion flow. It provides clear context but does not enumerate exclusions or explicit alternatives like 'use update_preview instead'.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds that the content covers instructions, limits, and current terms, but it does not disclose return format, whether information is fetched live, or any other behavioral details beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Explain') and the subject. It is concise with no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential content areas: publication process, limits, and current terms. It is slightly incomplete in clarifying what 'remote browser-confirmed' means, but overall an agent has enough context to invoke and use the tool appropriately.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema describes no properties, so there is nothing the description needs to explain. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Explain' and names the exact resource: remote browser-confirmed AIfra publication of ready static files, along with limits and current terms. It distinguishes itself from the preview/status siblings by being the only instructions-focused tool, though 'AIfra' and 'remote browser-confirmed' are jargon that could confuse an agent.

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 implied: an agent would call this when deployment instructions, limits, or terms are requested. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like get_preview_status or get_operation_status, and no exclusions are stated.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns no file content or management key, and it warns that a pending status must not be treated as published. These are meaningful caveats not inferable from 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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and possible outcomes, the second states exclusions, and the third provides an important interpretive caveat. The key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers the essential outcomes, exclusions, and an important semantic warning. It does not mention error cases like unknown operation IDs, but the scope is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.

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?

There is only one parameter, operation_id, and the schema documents its format via a regex pattern. The description ties the parameter to 'a prepared operation' but does not explain how to obtain or validate an operation_id. This is adequate but minimal compensation for the absence of schema descriptions.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a prepared operation'), and enumerates the possible statuses: pending, complete, failed, or uncertain. This clearly differentiates it from sibling get_preview_status, which is scoped to previews rather than prepared operations.

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 description clearly indicates this tool is for reading the status of a prepared operation, which tells an agent when to reach for it over the preview-status sibling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive read. The description adds specificity about what is read (status, URL, original expiry), which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful detail about the operation's scope.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Read' and immediately states the target and the fields. There is zero filler, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is read and from what. It doesn't mention error cases (e.g., non-existent preview) or the exact response format, but for a read-only tool with annotations indicating safety, this is largely sufficient. The openWorldHint suggests the world may change, but that's annotation-provided. The description is adequate for an agent to know what to expect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter. The only parameter is preview_id, with a pattern suggesting an ID format, but the description does not explicitly state that preview_id is the identifier of the preview to read. The phrase 'existing preview' hints at it, but no explicit mapping is given. This is minimal compensation for a low-coverage 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('existing preview'), and specifies the exact data returned (public status, URL, original expiry). It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like create_preview, delete_preview, and update_preview, which are mutations, and from get_deploy_instructions/get_operation_status, which target different resources.

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 description implies usage context: it is for reading preview metadata, not for creating, updating, or deleting. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, the purpose is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with the mutation tools. However, it doesn't mention when to prefer this over get_operation_status, which could also relate to preview state.

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

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint false), the description reveals important behavioral traits: it only prepares a replacement and returns an approval link (not a published URL), requires browser confirmation, requires the existing management key, and leaves expiry unchanged. This is rich operational context that annotations alone do not provide, though it doesn't detail exactly what the destructive replacement will affect.

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?

The description is four dense sentences with the core purpose and the critical 'exactly one' constraint front-loaded. Every sentence adds new information about the approval flow, consent, or key requirement, but it is slightly long and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the invocation alternatives, the approval flow, the browser-key requirement, and the unchanged expiry. It doesn't describe the structure of the returned approval link or what to do with it, but that is beyond the immediate call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping the one-of alternatives: 'small files' to the files array, 'ZIP archive_base64' to archive_base64, and 'allowed provider ZIP file reference' to the archive object. However, it doesn't clarify preview_id or accept_terms beyond their schema definitions, and the exact structure of files/archive is left entirely 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?

The description states a specific purpose: 'Prepare replacement of an existing temporary static preview', clearly identifying an existing resource and a replacement action. This distinguishes it from create_preview (new preview) and delete_preview (removal), though the verb 'prepare replacement' is slightly indirect compared to a direct 'update' or 'replace'.

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 description gives concrete usage constraints: 'Supply exactly one of small files, ZIP archive_base64, or an allowed provider ZIP file reference' and explicitly notes 'No backend/build' and 'Requires explicit consent'. It also states the key precondition about the existing management key. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'existing' qualifier and the approval-link flow imply the distinction.

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