preview_configuration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates that the tool generates a preview rather than applying changes, but it does not explicitly confirm that no side effects occur, whether it performs validation, or what conditions might cause failure.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Generate a configuration preview') and then adds clarifying detail about what the preview includes.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a preview tool, especially given the output schema exists, so return details need not be in the description. However, it lacks explicit non-mutation guarantees or distinctions from the validate_configuration sibling, leaving some ambiguity about when this tool is the correct choice.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond referring to the configuration generally, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: generating a configuration preview with diff and mutation targets. It is distinct from sibling tools like apply_configuration and validate_configuration, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The phrase 'before applying any changes' implies the tool should be used before apply_configuration, but it does not explicitly describe when to choose this tool over validate_configuration or other siblings, nor does it state when not to use it.

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