nexus_prepare_change

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the change is not sent, and that the returned change_id is one-time, which is critical lifecycle information. It doesn't disclose error handling or side effects, but the core 'preview without sending' trait is well covered.

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, information-dense sentence covering the action, scope, safety property, and output. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Validate' and contains no waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the 'preview' consists of and the exact return format beyond a change_id. It also leaves out error handling and prerequisites (like needing to call nexus_describe_operation first). The essential workflow is conveyed, but dependencies and edge cases are only implied.

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 67%, and the description adds no parameter semantics. Path and query parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, and the description doesn't reinforce the relationship between the body and nexus_describe_operation's request_body schema. The tool description leaves users without guidance on how to populate these params.

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 specific action ('Validate and preview'), the resource ('a non-GET Nexus Dashboard API change'), and the key output ('one-time change_id'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like nexus_apply_change (which presumably sends the change) and nexus_read (which handles GET operations).

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 that this tool is a required prerequisite for applying a change ('required to apply exactly this request'), and the 'non-GET' qualification tells users this is not for read operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool beyond the non-GET filter.

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