Turn dry-run mode on or off

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that writes are recorded in the audit log, returned as a preview, and never sent to Pinterest, while reads continue to work. The 'this session' phrasing also scopes the effect, which annotations alone do not convey. It could still say whether the setting survives reconnects, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences, action and scope front-loaded, with the explanation of dry-run semantics following. No redundant wording.

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 return values need not be described, and the description covers effect, audit logging, previews, and read behavior. Minor remaining gap: whether the audit-logged previews can be retrieved later (the sibling audit tools suggest so but it is not stated).

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?

Only one boolean parameter with 0% schema description coverage, but the description's phrase 'turn dry-run on or off' maps directly onto 'enabled' and clarifies the two states' consequences. Nothing further is needed for a single toggle flag.

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 ('Turn dry-run on or off') plus the scope ('for this session'). No sibling tool in the list toggles dry-run behavior, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.

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 explains what dry-run does, which implicitly tells the agent to enable it before write operations. But it never states when to use it explicitly, gives no when-not conditions, and points to no alternative (e.g., read_request or audit_lookup) for inspection workflows.

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