preview_isolated_form_release

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares safety, but the description adds real context: it reads three distinct organizations, demands an empty isolated solution and matching target form, and performs a concurrency-protected (hash-validated) dry run. What the preview actually returns, and whether failures surface as conflicts or errors, is left unstated.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the safety disclaimer is well placed at the end. The first sentence is a run-on list of conditions ('Read..., require..., review..., and preview...') that reads as a compressed procedure rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose.

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?

This is a high-complexity, 14-parameter, three-organization operation with 7% schema coverage and no output schema, so the description should explain return shape and parameter roles. It conveys preconditions and safety but leaves the preview result, conflict reporting, and most parameter semantics undefined — a significant gap for a dry-run tool whose value is its output.

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?

With 14 parameters and only 7% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden, yet it only gestures at structure: 'three distinct organizations' implies the three profiles, 'candidate scope' hints at candidate_xml/approved_paths, and 'concurrency-protected' hints at the three hashes. It never explains logical_name, solution_unique_name, or the required relationships between matching IDs and hashes, so an agent must guess at 13 undocumented required parameters.

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 action — previewing a concurrency-protected save of an isolated form release — along with its preconditions (empty isolated solution, matching target form). The closing clause 'No writes, export, or publication' draws a clear line against export_isolated_form_release, apply_isolated_form_release, and publish_isolated_release_component, though it never names 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?

Preconditions are explicit ('require an empty isolated solution and matching target form'), and the negative scope ('No writes, export, or publication') tells the agent what this tool does not cover. It stops short of naming the sibling tools that handle the write/export/publish cases, so the routing requires inference from tool names.

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