preview_profile_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a non-mutating operation by saying 'before saving' and describes the output as a rendered preview. It also discloses a meaningful behavioral quirk: start_login does NOT open this tool, and an API key must be set. This is valuable transparency, though it could be more explicit about side effects or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful access note. The sentences are efficient, though the phrase 'with sample data' and 'placeholder variables filled in' are slightly redundant. The access block is clear and actionable.

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?

The description covers purpose, timing, and access, and the schema handles parameter details. However, there is no output schema and no explanation of what the returned preview looks like. It also does not clarify how this tool differs from closely named siblings like preview_template or render_template, which an agent would need to route correctly.

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 input schema already documents all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning by mentioning 'placeholder variables filled in', which helps understand body and button fields. It does not, however, add per-parameter detail 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 action ('Preview a profile template') and the resource, making the tool's function obvious. It also explains what the preview does: 'Shows how the message will look with placeholder variables filled in.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like preview_template or render_template beyond the word 'profile.'

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 gives explicit timing context: 'before saving' indicates when this tool should be used. It also provides important access guidance, explaining that a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY is required and that start_login does not grant access to this tool. It stops short of naming alternative tools or specifying when not to use this one.

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