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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent. The description adds the consent-gated two-step flow ('returns an approval link, not a published URL; user must confirm in their browser'), the browser-bound management-key requirement, that no backend/build occurs, and that expiry is unchanged. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive staging tool.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then each subsequent clause adding distinct operational value (mutual exclusivity, no build, consent flow, auth requirement, unchanged expiry). No 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?

With no output schema and no annotations describing returns, the description correctly covers the return behavior (approval link, not published URL) and the confirmation flow. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit documentation of preview_id's expected format and the accept_terms flag.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does cover the key constraint that files and archive_base64 are mutually exclusive. But it leaves preview_id format, accept_terms semantics (only loosely via 'requires explicit consent'), and the encoding option unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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: 'Prepare replacement of an existing temporary static preview.' The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_preview, and 'prepare replacement' clarifies this is a staged operation rather than a direct write. It stops short of naming sibling tools explicitly, so it lands at a clear-but-not-sibling-differentiating 4.

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?

'Supply exactly one of small files or ZIP archive_base64' gives a real usage constraint, and 'existing' implies the update-vs-create split. However, it never explicitly says when to pick this over create_preview or delete_preview, nor names an alternative, so usage is only implied.

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