Preview workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: 'non-committable' and 'without creating livestock records,' that literal and 'today' defaults are resolved once, that it returns structured field/domain issues, and the 'never guess a missing required answer' directive.

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?

Five dense sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose before the operation-specific detail. Every sentence carries information, though the operation/parameter enumeration makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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 14-param, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, operation routing, default resolution, and the partial return shape ('structured field/domain issues'). It stops short of describing the preview artifact's structure or the idempotent request_id snapshot behavior (left to the schema).

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?

With 57% schema coverage across 14 params, the description adds genuine value by grouping parameters per operation (template_id/inputs for record_birth; record_id/expected_revision/reason/changes for amend_birth), which the flat schema does not convey. Some params (bundle, replaces_preview_id) remain unexplained in prose or 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Resolve one workflow run into a non-committable preview without creating livestock records.' It also names the sibling it complements (commit_workflow), letting an agent place it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditional routing between the two operations: 'record_birth with template_id and inputs' vs 'amend_birth with record_id, expected_revision, reason and changes.' It also frames the review-before-commit workflow against commit_workflow, though it never states an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion.

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