preview_rename

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces 'Nothing is changed' rather than contradicting it. It adds real context beyond the annotations by disclosing that a confirmation_token is returned and is required for the downstream rename_files call, which is workflow-critical. It stops short of describing the preview payload structure in detail.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the non-mutating guarantee in the first two sentences, then adds workflow and examples. The examples earn their place for intent matching, though the parenthetical 'current path -> new path' is the only mildly redundant phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the full preview-then-apply loop including the token handoff. Given 4 optional params and a rich output schema, this is close to complete; only the meaning of limit and the no-filter default behavior are left implicit.

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 coverage is 75%, with movie, series, and season already documented inline; the description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., that limit caps the number of previewed files, or that omitting movie/series previews the whole library). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the load.

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+resource (preview which files would be renamed) plus the scope (current naming settings, current path -> new path), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rename_files by being the non-mutating step. An agent can tell exactly what it produces without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: show the preview to the user, and if they agree, apply with rename_files using the confirmation_token returned here. Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, plus two example user phrasings that map intent to this tool.

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