document_render_preview

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers real value: non-destructive ('without changing the source document'), transparency, inline return for small results, and a defined save destination ('authorized workspace path'). It stops short of permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the output behavior. No filler or repetition.

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, but for a 10-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and minimal annotations the description leaves major gaps — notably optimistic-concurrency revisions and selection/area targeting. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently without reading the schema.

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 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'bounded' vaguely gestures at the width/height limits and 'workspace path' at outputPath/workspaceId; the concurrency semantics of expectedRevision/expectedOutputRevision and the meaning of area/pageId/selectionId are unexplained.

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 ('Renders a ... PNG preview') with useful scope qualifiers ('bounded', 'transparent', 'without changing the source document'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like export_png or document_export, so an agent must infer the preview-vs-export distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no conditions for choosing this over export_png or other render/export siblings. Usage is only implied by the word 'preview'.

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