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

Annotations give a safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and the description usefully adds the 'publishes nothing' guarantee, distinguishing preview from publish. However, given readOnlyHint=false and a required idempotency_key, the description should clarify why a no-side-effect preview needs an idempotency key and whether anything is logged or persisted; that tension is left unexplained.

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 tight sentences with the transformation behavior front-loaded and the critical safety fact ('publishes nothing') placed at the end for emphasis. 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 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the definition covers the high-level contract ('returns the transformed variants') but omits what those variants look like or how many are returned. For a required-key, nested-input tool the description is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 only 43% and the description mentions no parameters at all. Core inputs such as id, brand_id, workspace_id, and the required idempotency_key are undocumented in the description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap; only the nested source fields get partial schema-level 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?

Specific verb ('Preview') plus resource ('destination preset') and an explicit scope: 'how a destination preset transforms a source post for each of its channels.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling mutation tools (aidelly_create_destination_preset, aidelly_create_post) by stating it publishes nothing, though it doesn't name an alternative routing tool explicitly.

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 'publishes nothing' implies a dry-run/sandbox use case without stating when to prefer this preview over actually creating content, or what prerequisites apply. Usage context is inferable but not spelled out, and no sibling alternative is named.

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