update_card_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a non-destructive preview operation (implied by 'Preview changes' and the requirement to confirm before applying), and it establishes a specific workflow requirement (showing diff and waiting for confirmation). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the card doesn't exist.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about the tool's purpose and required usage pattern.

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?

For a mutation-related tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clearly establishing the preview nature of the operation and the required confirmation workflow. However, it doesn't describe what the preview output looks like or what happens in error cases, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain format expectations, constraints, or examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Preview changes') and resource ('to a card with diff'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'apply_update_card' which actually applies changes. It explicitly indicates this is a preview operation rather than an actual update.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states that after calling this tool, you MUST show the diff to the user and ask for confirmation before calling 'apply_update_card'. This creates a clear workflow distinction between preview and application tools.

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