Preview project defaults

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds materially useful context: no provider work occurs, the server's settings permission is required, and review fields must not be fabricated. It does not describe what the returned draft contains in detail, but the read-only preview nature is well 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then permission, then workflow. Every sentence earns its place, though the phrasing is dense with the combined draft/revision/impact triad.

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 read-only preview with no output schema, the description names the returned artifacts and the prerequisite permission, and warns about the review-field integrity constraint. It is nearly complete; only the specifics of parameter behavior for the many optional location/schedule fields remain unaddressed.

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 58%, so several of the 12 parameters (city, country, timezone, jitter_minutes, idempotency_key) carry no description. The prose describes what is returned rather than adding meaning to any input parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Preview) and resource (the current defaults draft, source revision and impact) with the explicit scope that nothing is saved. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling update_project_defaults by naming it as the confirmation step.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: preview first, then review the draft before confirming with update_project_defaults, and warns against fabricating or auto-confirming review fields. The when-to-use and the handoff to the alternative are both stated.

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