preview_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that no file is created and that omitting show_name with multiple shows returns available shows instead of a plan, but it does not describe permissions, error behavior, or output structure beyond a high-level summary.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the no-file behavior, then uses a concise Args block. It is appropriately sized for a preview tool, though the parameter block could be slightly tighter.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more to explain what the preview returns. It says the plan shows effects on models, but does not describe the output shape or whether it includes counts, warnings, or validation details, leaving an agent only partially prepared to interpret the result.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents all three parameters: mp3_path as a path to an .mp3, mode with the otherwise undocumented values 'auto', 'guided', and 'template', and show_name including the important fallback behavior when omitted.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Preview the sequence generation plan') and immediately clarifies the key scope distinction: it does not create a file. The second sentence explains what the preview contains ('what effects would be placed on which models'), making the purpose distinct from write-oriented siblings like create_sequence.

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 'without creating a file' implies this is the safe inspection step before generation, but the description never explicitly names create_sequence or says when to prefer this tool over analyzing the song directly. The show_name fallback guidance is useful, but overall usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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