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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and 'without applying it' largely restates that. The only novel signal is the word 'bounded', which hints at limits on the operations payload but never explains what those bounds are or what the preview returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy; the read-only intent lands first. Its brevity is efficient structurally, though it shades into under-specification given the schema's complexity.

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 a large discriminated-union payload, an output schema, and concurrency tokens, one sentence is far too thin. The agent is left without guidance on how to obtain expectedRevision/expectedContentHash, what 'bounded' limits apply, or what the preview result is used for before applying.

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% across four required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing. It says nothing about the optimistic-concurrency pair expectedRevision/expectedContentHash, nor about the discriminated operation kinds, which are the hardest parts of this schema to use correctly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Preview a bounded content variant edit') and adds the key scope qualifier 'without applying it', which separates it from a mutating edit operation. It does not, however, distinguish this preview from sibling previews such as preview_idea_edit or preview_schedule_edit, which an agent must choose between by resource type alone.

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?

'Without applying it' implies a preview-then-apply workflow, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the many sibling preview_* tools, no prerequisites (e.g. that a revision and content hash must first be obtained), and no exclusions. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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