Preview map edits

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explicitly stating 'without modifying project assets' and that it 'returns an expiring changeSetId bound to the exact map and current dependency revisions'. Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the description reinforces this. It also details the types of operations supported, though it does not disclose all potential side effects (e.g., error behaviors). No contradictions with annotations.

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, very long sentence that lists numerous operations in a dense, run-on format. It is not structured for easy parsing; bullet points or shorter sentences would improve readability and conciseness. The front-loaded purpose is good, but the rest is overwhelming.

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 and the rich input schema, the description covers the main purpose, non-modification behavior, the returned changeSetId, and an exhaustive list of supported operations. It does not discuss error handling or prerequisites, but the output schema (not shown) likely covers return values. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by enumerating and explaining the many operation types, including nuanced details like tile object encoding and shape constraints. However, it does not provide additional meaning for the top-level parameters (mapPath, expectedRevision, expectedDependencyRevisions) beyond what the schema already describes.

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 validates root map-property updates and various other edits without modifying assets, and returns an expiring changeSetId. The verb 'Validates' and the purpose 'Preview map edits' are specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like tiled_preview_shape or tiled_preview_generate.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for previewing edits before committing, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other preview or edit tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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