preview_supershift_write

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

The description clearly indicates the tool is non-destructive ('without touching the device'), which is important behavioral context. No annotations exist, so the description partially covers transparency, but could elaborate on side effects or authorization.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key information: dry-run write plan for Supershift, no device modification. Every word is meaningful.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'dry-run write plan' entails, how to structure the required 'shifts' array, or what the output schema provides, despite having one.

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 description does not explain any parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but lack details on expected format, constraints, or semantics for 'shifts', 'backend', and 'profile_path'.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Build a dry-run write plan for Supershift without touching the device.' It distinctly specifies a preview (dry-run) function and contrasts with actual write tools among siblings.

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 implies using this tool for testing before actual writes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'create_supershift_shifts' or other preview tools. No guidance on when not to use.

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