Preview

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 safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond that – no statement that this is a dry run producing no side effects, and only an oblique 'Preview/apply/verify' phrasing hinting at the mutation variant.

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?

Only two short sentences, so it is not bloated, but 'Preview (rm_docs_readiness)' merely restates the tool name before the actual content, and the slash-joined action list is a muddy way to convey the workflow.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool embedded in a preview/apply/verify workflow, the description leaves the agent without clear routing or the precondition that readiness config must already exist.

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 all four parameters (confirm, manifest, workspace, repository) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 the resource (readiness artifacts) and the verb (preview), but the second sentence reads as a fragment listing three actions ('Preview/apply/verify artifacts'), so it is ambiguous whether it describes this tool or the trio. It does not clearly distinguish this preview from its siblings rm_docs_readiness_apply and rm_docs_readiness_verify beyond the word 'Preview'.

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?

'after per-repository readiness setup' gives a light sequencing hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not, and no routing between preview, apply, and verify. The important precondition (config must already be generated/adopted) lives in the schema parameter text, not the description.

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