Preview tile-name registry edits

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, including constraints on names (lowercase, 64 chars, tileset existence), registry bounds (4096 names), revision pinning, and the apply process. It fully discloses the tool's safety (no asset touched) and validation logic.

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 dense sentence that packs all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys constraints. However, it could be broken into shorter sentences or bullet points for easier parsing, though every clause adds value.

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 (array of discriminated objects, revision pinning), the description covers all behavioral aspects: what it validates, what it returns, constraints on names, tilesets, registry limits, concurrency handling, and the apply phase. It is thorough and leaves no major questions unanswered.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for missing parameter docs. While it mentions the operations array (upserts/deletes) and name restrictions, it does not explain the other parameter (expectedRegistryRevision) or the detailed structure of each operation item beyond what is in the schema. Adds some value but not complete compensation.

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 that the tool validates upsert/delete edits to the tile-name registry and returns an expiring change set. It uses specific verbs ('validates', 'returns') and resources ('.tiledmcp/tile-names.json semantic registry'), which distinguishes it from sibling preview tools that operate on different assets.

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 implies the tool is for previewing registry edits before applying, and notes that no Tiled asset is touched (safe). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tiled_list_tile_names or tiled_apply_change_set, nor does it provide scenarios where it should not be used.

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