preview_account_shell_customization

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is 'non-publishing' and 'cannot publish or roll back a revision,' providing clear expectations about side effects and limitations. It does not detail every potential behavior, but the key non-destructive nature is well communicated.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that convey the core purpose, the non-publishing nature, and the intended reviewer. Every sentence adds essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's function and constraints. It explains the purpose (preview receipt), the audience (human/operator), and what the tool does not do (publish or roll back). It does not describe the output receipt format, but given the simplicity of the operation, the provided context is adequate.

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 provides only the parameter name, type, and title (draft_revision_id, string) with no description. The tool description does not elaborate on what constitutes a valid draft_revision_id, its format, or how it should be obtained. While the name is somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of additional detail limits clarity for an agent.

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 a specific action: 'Compile one draft into a non-publishing preview receipt.' This distinguishes it from related tools like create_account_shell_customization_draft and get_account_shell_customization, and explicitly notes it cannot publish or roll back, so an agent can identify its unique role.

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 indicates the intended use case: producing a preview receipt for human/operator review at the SDK publication boundary. It effectively communicates when to use this tool versus a publishing action, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for non-use.

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