Preview a native TX write

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

The description adds significant detail beyond annotations: it explains the exact serialization process, the constraint that the .tx target must be new, the expiring change set nature, the pinned source revision requirement, and that no Tiled CLI is involved. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent as this is a preview generating a change set without immediate write.

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 coherent paragraph with every sentence adding necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While not extremely terse, it avoids fluff and is well-structured for its technical depth.

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 (4 parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, constraints, behavior, return type (expiring change set), and application conditions. It adequately complements the annotations and schema without requiring additional explanation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds context beyond schema descriptions. For example, it states that targetPath must be a new file in the source template's directory, a constraint not in the schema. It also clarifies expectedTemplateRevision as a SHA-256 revision from a read/preview, reinforcing the schema pattern.

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 precisely states it serializes a restricted-profile .tj object template to TX bytes following Tiled 1.12.2's writeObjectTemplate exactly. It specifies the root element, excluded attributes, and failure modes for tile templates and nested templates, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like tiled_preview_write_tmx and tiled_preview_template.

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 explicitly states conditions where the tool fails closed (tile templates and nested templates), implying when not to use it. It also constrains the target path to a new file in the source directory. While it provides clear usage context, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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