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

The description uses the word 'preview,' which strongly implies a read-only operation, but annotations set `readOnlyHint: false`, suggesting the tool may modify data. This contradiction can mislead the agent. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implied preview, nor does it explain the side effects, required permissions, or rate limits.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and path, followed by the purpose. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description only covers the high-level purpose, omitting details about required parameters (e.g., `idempotency_key` purpose, `source` structure), return format, and potential side effects. An agent would need to infer much from the schema alone.

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 only 43%, meaning many parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, failing to compensate for the gaps. Parameters like `id`, `brand_id`, and `idempotency_key` are not explained, and the nested `source` object is only partially described in 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 clearly states the verb ('preview'), the resource ('destination preset'), and the action ('transforms a source post across channels'). It includes the HTTP method and path for clarity, and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_destination_presets or create_destination_preset.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No criteria for use, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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