tenki_create_preview_url

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that the URL is 'shareable' and 'public', which conveys the side effect of exposure. It also states the networking requirement, which is behavioral context not present in annotations. No contradictions.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, all documented) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and a critical prerequisite. However, it doesn't mention what the tool returns (presumably the preview URL) or explicitly distinguish it from the closely related tenki_bind_preview_url / tenki_get_preview_url, leaving minor gaps.

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 are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'for a port', which is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('shareable public preview URL for a port in a sandbox'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tenki_get_preview_url (retrieve) and tenki_open_preview (open). It also notes a key prerequisite (inbound networking). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool (to create a shareable public preview URL) and includes a critical precondition (sandbox must have inbound networking enabled). It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate versus related tools like tenki_bind_preview_url or tenki_open_preview.

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