Classification Impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating call. The description adds that it is a preview and what scope it covers, but says nothing about result format, counts, or completeness guarantees beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler; nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 small read-only tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description supplies enough for correct invocation. It lacks an explicit statement of what the preview returns, but with no output schema and read-only safe semantics, the gap is minor.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including cross-references to organization_list and classification_list. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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), resource (classification deletion impact) and even enumerates affected entity types (conversations, knowledge entries). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from sibling classification_delete, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Preview what deleting ... would affect' strongly implies a pre-deletion safety check, but the description never states when to call this versus going straight to classification_delete, nor any prerequisites beyond the schema's pointer to classification_list.

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