preview_undo_lift_composition

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

With no annotations present, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'WITHOUT mutating any state' and 'Read-only counterpart,' disclosing that this is a safe preview. It also details what the preview will show (tombstoning, restoring descendants, rewriting CO references, or divergence refusals), going well beyond a generic 'preview' claim.

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 compact and front-loaded; the first sentence states the core purpose and safety guarantee. The second and third sentences add essential behavioral detail and alternative tool linkage without any fluff or repetition. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 an existing output schema and the described behavior, the preview's return content is sufficiently disclosed in prose. The description includes safety semantics, use context, and relationship to the mutation counterpart, making it complete for the tool's complexity and 3-parameter surface.

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?

The tool description itself does not describe parameters, but the input schema provides rich context for lift_id (dual lookup modes) and model_id (workspace/404 restriction). Schema coverage is 67%, leaving server_version undocumented. Since the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, a middle score is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Preview') and precisely names the output ('inverse plan or divergence refusal for a prior lift_applied event'). It clearly distinguishes this from its sibling undo_lift_composition_event by labeling itself a read-only counterpart and also differs from preview_undo_split_composition by specifying the lift operation.

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?

Explicitly states this is the read-only counterpart to undo_lift_composition_event and frames its use in the confirmation flow, so the operator previews before committing. This gives a clear when-to-use context and names the alternative mutation tool, satisfying the guidance requirement.

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