editor_preview_interface

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description substantiates that with concrete side effects: it takes over mouse and keyboard for ~30s (90 with import), and with mapPath the save is imported and opened. It also pre-empts a real trap by noting client controls are drawn pre-script, not as the runtime renders them. It does not explicitly say what persists or is altered by the import, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the run-on parentheticals ('(what stands 700 to the side on a computer is off a phone's screen)', '(1600 x 900)...(1920 x 1080, also 21:9)') make it hard to scan, and the 'Most players are on phones' rationale is padding. Several genuinely load-bearing facts (runId, input takeover) are buried late in the paragraph.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains how results are retrieved ('Returns a runId; playtest_status gives the pictures') and discloses the timing cost and the pre-script rendering limitation. For a two-parameter preview tool that is essentially complete, with only default/bound handling of canvases left undocumented.

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 load, and it largely does: it maps the device families and resolutions to the canvases enum values and explains mapPath's import/reuse semantics precisely. It is silent on the default set ([pc, mobile, console]) and the minItems/maxItems bounds, leaving minor gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Show what the interface of a save looks like on other devices, in the editor itself, and return a picture of each canvas') and enumerates the device targets. It distinguishes itself from capture_editor_window and playtest_* by emphasizing that it renders device-specific canvases via the editor's own interface manager. The prose is convoluted, so an agent must read carefully, but the purpose lands.

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?

'This is the look to take before saying an interface is done' implies the use case, and the mapPath sentence explains the two entry conditions (import a save vs. show the open one). There is no explicit when-not guidance or a named sibling to use instead of this tool, so the agent must infer the boundaries against scene_check_client or capture_editor_window.

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