Preview an atomic multi-file transaction

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the transaction locks members against individual apply, is expiring, and that applying uses a crash-recoverable redo journal for atomicity. These details add significant behavioral context not captured by 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, information-dense sentence that efficiently conveys all key aspects: composition, constraints, locking, and atomicity guarantee. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 as a multi-file atomic transaction builder, the description covers composition rules, constraints, locking, and atomicity guarantee. It does not detail the return value or expiring behavior, but those are less critical for an agent's selection and invocation.

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 single parameter 'changeSetIds' is fully specified in the input schema (array, pattern, min/max items), but the description does not explain what it represents or how to obtain the IDs. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to add any semantic value beyond the schema.

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 composes multiple previewed change sets into a transaction change set, specifying allowed types (map edit, tileset edit, etc.), quantity bounds (2-16), and the requirement of pairwise-distinct target paths. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tiled_apply_change_set and tiled_preview_edits by focusing on atomic multi-file batching.

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 specifies that member change sets must be 'already previewed, unapplied' and have 'pairwise-distinct target paths,' giving clear prerequisites. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context implies its use for atomic multi-file operations.

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