adapt_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add meaningful behavior: it specifies what is computed (geometry, copy limits, link placement, disclosures, element order) and that the variant is hash-bound. However, it does not clarify persistence, permissions, whether this is a pure preview or a write, or what happens on repeated builds.

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 compact and front-loads the action. The em-dash list is dense but purposeful, and the hash-binding note is a useful closing detail rather than filler.

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 five parameters including a nested schedule object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the build outputs but omits parameter meaning, preview-vs-build semantics, and operational constraints.

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 compensate. It helps only with the adapter parameter by naming six accepted profile values, but says nothing about canonical_id, mode, schedule, or account_id, leaving most required and optional parameters 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Build one native variant for an adapter profile') and enumerates the adapter targets, which clearly separates it from generic content tools. The only friction is that the tool name says 'preview' while the description describes a build that is 'hash-bound', leaving a slight ambiguity about whether the artifact is durable.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as adaptation_diff, variant_revise, or approval_pack. The adapter list implies the tool is for surface adaptation, but an agent must infer the surrounding workflow.

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