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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'No ERP mutation,' 'Single-use approval binds target and payload,' and the limitation 'Public conversion without mail is unsupported.' It also notes that replies inherit visibility, which is beyond the schema. These details complement the annotations without contradicting them.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, when_to_use, preconditions, post_effects). Each parameter line provides necessary detail, and the main purpose is front-loaded. While it could be trimmed slightly, the density is justified given the tool's 14 parameters and complex behavior.

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?

For a tool with 14 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, the description covers all aspects: parameters, return values, preconditions, post-conditions, and execution flow. It also includes specific edge cases (e.g., 'Public ticket comments can send mail,' 'Public conversion without mail is unsupported'). Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full meaning of parameters. It does so comprehensively: each parameter is explained with aliases (e.g., 'alias content'), constraints (1–10000 chars), defaults, and usage rules (e.g., 'Omit for updates,' 'only internal/private updates'). This is exactly the compensation needed for the sparse 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 opens with a precise verb+resource statement: 'Preview a new comment or an existing comment's visibility change.' This distinguishes it from other preview_* tools (e.g., preview_write_entity, preview_accept_quotation) by targeting comments specifically. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 'when_to_use' section explicitly says 'Before writing' and points to get_schema for guidance. It also explains the execution flow via execute_approved. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative preview tools or state when not to use it (e.g., for batch operations), though the comment-specific scope makes this largely implicit.

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