preview_birth_event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it validates without saving, resolves dam/group/protocol/evidence details, requires explicit approval, and mandates a fresh preview after corrections.

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?

Three dense sentences with no fluff. The most important constraints—non-saving preview and approval before confirmation—are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a preview tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the agent's needs: what the tool does, what it shows, when to call it, and what to do before calling the confirmation sibling. The nested schema provides field-level detail where needed.

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 only 33%, and the description adds almost no parameter-specific meaning beyond referring generically to 'every bundle field.' It does not mention request_id preservation, farm_id, or clarify which bundle fields matter, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Validate and preview one atomic birth event,' and immediately clarifies it is a non-saving preview. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling confirm_birth_event by framing this tool as the approval-gathering step before confirmation.

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 when this tool should be used: before calling confirm_birth_event, and only after obtaining explicit producer approval of the exact preview. It also states the retry behavior, 'Any correction requires another preview,' which gives clear procedural guidance.

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