apps_preview_input

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

Annotations already declare destructive=false/readOnly=false? — specifically readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the operation requires current AI editing control and is confined to the preview, not the device App. It does not detail what state mutations occur, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two lean sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the precondition and exclusion. No filler or redundancy, though it could have spent its brevity on documenting the event payload.

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 mutation tool taking an opaque nested event object with no output schema and no parameter documentation, an agent lacks the information needed to construct a valid call. The description covers scope and auth but leaves the core payload shape entirely unaddressed.

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% and the 'event' parameter is a free-form nested object whose shape is undocumented anywhere. The phrase 'normalized control or pointer event' hints at event semantics but adds no structure, format, or meaning, and workspaceId is not explained at all. With such low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 gives a specific verb (send) and resource (normalized control or pointer event) and scopes it clearly with 'to the connected preview only.' It implicitly separates this from device-level siblings like apps_launch or apps_control by stating it cannot control the device App, though it does not name an explicit alternative.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite ('Requires current AI editing control') and an explicit exclusion ('cannot launch or control the device App'), which tells the agent both when and when-not to use it. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative to reach for instead, but the routing conditions are clear.

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