preview_mcdev_project_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses no writes/apply authorization/native validation, no auth/logs/hooks/live checks, concurrency caution, input size caps, UTF-8 hashing semantics, and byte-budgeted output. This is unusually complete for a preview tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded and most clauses are substantive, but the single dense paragraph piles caveats with semicolons and some legalistic phrasing ('native validation, execution readiness or atomic filesystem binding') that is harder to parse than necessary. It is still appropriately sized for a high-complexity read-only preview tool.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description nevertheless explains the return shape enough (full unredacted changes plus partial static proposed diagnosis within a byte budget), input limits, safety boundaries, and concurrency expectations. An agent has enough to decide and 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description reinforces 'complete document, not a patch' and the 1 MiB input cap but adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema. Hash semantics are output-related, not parameter semantics.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (read-only comparison) and both resources (.mcdevrc.json and a complete proposed JSON document), and rules out a patch. It does not name or route against sibling config tools such as read_mcdev_project_config or diagnose_mcdev_project_config, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

It gives workflow context ('before editing configuration') and a prerequisite to use the visual builder first, plus non-goals, but it never states when to call this versus read_mcdev_project_config or diagnose_mcdev_project_config. Usage is inferable as a preview-before-edit check, not explicitly prescribed.

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