preview_operation_parameters

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond those annotations by explaining the token is 'single-use', which rationalizes the non-idempotent hint and signals the token will be consumed by a later call. It does not state token expiry or that it must be passed to apply_operation_parameter_preview, but it adds meaningful context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb 'Preview' leads, and the resource and outcome follow efficiently. It earns its place, though the brevity overlaps with the parameter-semantics gap — slightly more detail on the flow would not be waste.

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 nested changes object, the idempotencyKey parameter, and the two-phase preview/apply workflow implied by siblings, the description is thin on flow context. The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, but the description leaves the relationship to apply_operation_parameter_preview and the role of idempotencyKey unexplained, which matters for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'feed/spindle change' maps to the changes object's feedRate and spindleSpeed fields, giving the most important parameter meaning. However, operationId and idempotencyKey receive no semantic explanation, and the preview/approval-token flow tying idempotencyKey to the token is absent.

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 states a specific verb ('Preview'), a specific resource ('a feed/spindle change'), and a distinctive outcome ('single-use approval token'). The token mechanism clearly differentiates this from siblings like get_operation_parameters (read-only inspection) and apply_operation_parameter_preview (actual application), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions the obvious companion tool apply_operation_parameter_preview, nor states that preview must precede application, nor gives any exclusions. An agent must infer the whole preview-then-apply workflow from sibling names alone.

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