preview_semantic_patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Validate' and 'preview' correctly signal a non-mutating check and it discloses the comparison basis (frozen facts, base revision), but it says nothing about permissions, whether validation mutates state, or what a failure looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and comparison basis lead. It is efficient, though near the edge of under-specification for a four-parameter tool.

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 not be explained, but a tool with four required params at 0% coverage and a nested open patch object needs far more than one sentence. The description does not let an agent assemble a valid call.

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 0% with four required parameters including a nested free-form 'patch' object. The description only hints at the patch ('ID-only'); source_run, semantic_store, and prepare_manifest — which look like pointers to run artifacts and stores — are left entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Validate an ID-only semantic patch') plus meaningful qualifiers ('against frozen facts and its base revision'), and the 'preview' prefix strongly implies a dry run vs commit_semantic_patch. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Validation against frozen facts and the base revision implies this is a pre-commit check, but the description never states when to call it versus commit_semantic_patch or compile_semantic_revision, nor what to do on failure. Usage is only implied.

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