we_preview_set_properties

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive local operation. The description adds value beyond that: changes are scoped to an owned preview window, values are validated before being applied, and the source/default configuration is left untouched — key behavioral facts the annotations do not convey. Error behavior and any permission requirements remain unstated.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; the scope qualifier and the source-unchanged caveat each earn their place. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description covers what happens and the blast radius but omits validation failure behavior, whether values are merged or replaced, and what a successful call returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carry the burden for both required parameters. It partially does: 'named properties only' signals a key/value partial update that leaves unspecified properties alone, and 'owned preview window' implies previewId must reference a preview the caller owns. It adds no detail on value types, the 4096-char string cap, or UUID format.

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 concrete action (validate and set named properties) on a specific resource (an owned preview window), which separates it from the preview lifecycle siblings like we_preview_open/close/observe. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative tool for the same conceptual task (e.g., we_project_apply), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Only to an owned preview window' and 'source defaults stay unchanged' give a usage constraint and a non-persistence caveat, which is useful context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to a sibling for making real, persistent changes, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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