push_preview_module_to_facets_cp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains that the tool pushes a test version, auto-extracts git details, and includes a validation step that may require skipping. However, it does not detail potential side effects (e.g., overwrite of existing previews) or authentication requirements, which would be beneficial for safe usage.

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 concise at four sentences, with a clear front-loaded purpose. The Args section is structured and each sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, git details, parameter explanations, and return value. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 params, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (returning JSON string), the description adequately covers the core functionality. It omits prerequisites like FTF CLI installation or required permissions, but these are implicit in a CLI-based tool. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. For 'module_path', it simply restates 'The path to the module', which adds little over the schema title. However, for 'skip_terraform_validation_if_provider_not_found', it provides a clear usage condition ('send as true only if you see...'), significantly adding value beyond the schema. Overall, the description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: to preview a module using the FTF CLI and push a test version to the control plane. It also mentions automatic extraction of git details, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_module' or 'generate_module_with_user_confirmation' that handle different aspects of module management.

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 provides a specific usage condition for the boolean parameter, advising to set it to true only when a 'Provider configuration not present' error occurs during validation. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'validate_module' or 'test_already_previewed_module', leaving some ambiguity.

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