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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: 'Links and submissions remain intact' reinforces destructiveHint=false, and 'Publication remains unchanged until approved preview execution' clarifies the mutation is deferred to the confirm step. 'Owner-bound' hints at an ownership/auth requirement. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false since creating a preview object is a write.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the safety guarantees (data intact, deferred mutation) following in logical order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the description adequately covers the mutation-safety story. The remaining gap is the 50% parameter coverage, which forces the agent to lean on the schema for the changes/timeZone semantics.

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 coverage is 50%. The description maps the three actions (close/reopen/change_dates) to their intent, which reflects the enum, but adds little about changes, timeZone, or assignmentId that the schema doesn't already convey. Marginal value over structured fields.

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 ('Creates an owner-bound confirmation preview') and enumerates the exact mutations covered (closing/reopening, changing open/due dates). The two-phase framing ('until approved preview execution') implies the confirm step, cleanly distinguishing it from confirm_update_publication, though it never names that sibling.

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 use case is implied (preview the listed changes before approving execution), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative tool. An agent can infer routing from context but isn't told the conditions that select this over confirm_update_publication.

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