dry_run_plan_action

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

Description states 'record an audit entry,' implying a non-idempotent side effect, directly contradicting the annotation idempotentHint=true. This creates an inconsistency between the described behavior and the structured metadata, so a score of 1 is warranted.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds meaningful info (preview, reversibility, audit entry, non-execution). No redundancy or padding.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks explicit when-to-use guidance and does not resolve the idempotency contradiction. For a dry-run tool among many related siblings, this is 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 100%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters (e.g., what 'force' or 'unforce' values do in the preview context), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') and clearly names the resource and action ('Query Store force/unforce action'), and differentiates from siblings by stating 'without executing it.' It also notes the audit entry recording, which separates it from other preview or analysis tools.

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 usage as a non-executing preview, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like prepare_plan_action or execute_sql. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance remains implicit.

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