Preview a roster import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that nothing is sent, which aligns with read-only behavior and adds a useful safety context. However, it doesn't describe the output format or error behavior, so value beyond annotations is modest.

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 a single 19-word sentence that front-loads the core action (reads a local XLSX workbook) and states the result (reports student-name changes before sending). No wasted words.

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 5 parameters including complex mappings and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't describe what the report contains, how mappings are used, or what the output looks like. An agent would need to inspect the schema and potentially sibling tools to understand how to call it correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (workbookPath, sheetNames, studentNameFormat, mappings, includeStudentDetails). The only hint is 'local XLSX workbook' relating to workbookPath. Since the schema itself provides only structural info (types, enums, required), the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool reads a local XLSX workbook and reports student-name changes before sending anything to ClassDojo. This implies a preview action distinct from the sibling apply_roster_import, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb+resource is specific.

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 phrase 'before anything is sent to ClassDojo' conveys when to use this tool (as a preview preceding apply), but it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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