cms_add_preview

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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'setup' is generated, without revealing side effects, files created/modified, whether it mutates the project, whether it requires an existing CMS config, or anything about preview behavior. 'Pro feature' adds a small but not operational clue; overall the description fails to disclose enough about what happens when this tool is invoked.

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 short to the point of being under-specified. One short phrase, 'Generate content preview setup (Pro feature)', is technically concise but uses the same verb and resource as the tool name, adding no substantive information. It also fails to front-load meaningful behavioral or usage details because there are none.

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 one undocumented parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague 'Pro feature' note, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know why api_key is needed, what files/setup are created, what side effects occur, or what a successful result looks like. The sibling list includes multiple CMS tools, so the lack of differentiation makes this even more incomplete.

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 50%, with 'directory' documented as 'Project directory' but 'api_key' completely undocumented. The description does not clarify the api_key's purpose, where it comes from, or how it relates to the Pro feature. It also does not specify whether api_key is required for pro access or only for certain operations. With one undocumented parameter and a vague description, the semantics are insufficient.

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 says 'Generate content preview setup (Pro feature)' but no explicit resource beyond 'content preview' and no details on what this setup actually produces. It is a very short phrase that mostly restates the tool's verb pattern (cms_add_preview) without explaining what a 'content preview' is, what it does, or how it differs from sibling tools like cms_setup_headless and cms_generate_types.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling alternative to prefer. The description only says 'Pro feature', which at best hints at an entitlement/availability condition, and the sibling list shows many cms_* tools but none are mentioned. An agent cannot distinguish when to invoke cms_add_preview versus cms_setup_headless or cms_generate_types.

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