Create free 2ools preview

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals the preview is temporary (expires after 24h), read-only, free, and authless. It also clarifies that the tool does not generate the page, which is a significant behavioral caveat. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by constraints (temporary, read-only, expiry) and a vital usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 description covers the tool's core purpose, prerequisite, and lifecycle well. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a URL or preview ID), which is important for an agent to use the result. With no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that the HTML must be a complete standalone document already created in chat, which reinforces the html parameter. It doesn't add new syntax details but provides usage nuance.

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 it converts a complete standalone HTML document into a temporary, read-only preview, and explicitly says it does not generate the page. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from siblings like render_project_preview.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: the HTML must already exist in the chat, and it must be called after writing the HTML. It also notes the tool is free/authless and expires after 24 hours, providing context. However, it doesn't explicitly an alternative tool or exclusions, just implies them.

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