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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: 'Dry-run', 'never writes', and the server (not the caller) selecting the exact currently served pin. It omits permission/authorization requirements and any rate or size limits, which is the only real gap.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the mechanism, then the critical non-writing guarantee. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully names the preview shape and its hashes. The token-based auth path is covered by the schema description rather than here, which is acceptable but leaves the description slightly thin on access prerequisites.

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%: token is well documented in the schema, but designId has no description at all. The description only indirectly implies designId identifies the affected design, adding little beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (dry-run recovery of a design whose stored catalog pin no longer resolves) and names the returned type CatalogUpgradePreviewV1. It also names the sibling that performs the follow-up mutation (ui_builder_apply), so an agent can place it precisely in the catalog workflow.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: use it when a stored catalog pin no longer resolves, and explains what the call sets up (a later upgradeCatalog mutation via ui_builder_apply). It stops short of stating when not to use it, e.g. when the pin still resolves and a normal preview would suffice.

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