Preview a safe publication

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

Annotations already cover idempotency, destructiveness, and read-only hints, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It does add the blocking-on-conflicts behavior and the previewToken outcome, but it does not clarify what side effects exist given readOnlyHint=false, such as token creation or session state changes.

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?

One tightly packed sentence conveys the core action, the success return, and the failure/blocking condition without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and blocking scenario. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it could briefly mention that this is the pre-confirm step in the publication workflow.

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 the only parameter, session_id, is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how session_id is used or its format, but the schema already provides the necessary detail, so 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?

The description names a specific action ('Perform a three-way comparison'), a concrete return value ('previewToken'), and a distinct blocking behavior ('block on same-file conflicts and deletions'). This clearly separates it from confirms, read/write, and workflow-status siblings even without naming them.

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?

No guidance is given about when this tool should be called relative to siblings like confirm_publish, begin_edit_session, or write_report_file. The preview/confirm relationship is implied by the title, but the description never states 'use this before confirm_publish' or when it should be avoided.

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