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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: the operation is 'owner-bound' and requires explicit teacher consent for that specific preview, which is important for an agent deciding whether it is authorized to fire it.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the gating constraint (teacher approval) is placed where the agent will read it first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the consent gating and preview binding an agent needs. It is slightly thin on the ordering relationship with the prepare step and on failure modes (e.g., expired or already-consumed preview).

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 one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains previewId's format and its link to the matching prepare_ tool. The description adds the 'owner-bound' scoping nuance but no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: applying a publication preview to change a published assignment. It is distinguishable from prepare_update_publication via the previewId binding, but it never names the sibling that produces the preview, so the workflow pairing must be inferred from the schema description rather than the prose.

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?

It gives a clear invocation precondition — the preview must be applied only after 'explicit teacher approval of that specific preview' — which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming the alternative (prepare_update_publication) or stating when not to call it (e.g., no preview produced yet).

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