preview_edits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure and does a good job: it explicitly states the operation is in-memory only and does not write to disk, and that edits are applied sequentially to the same document. It stops short of describing failure modes or precise before/after semantics for edge cases such as delete.

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 main safety and purpose information is front-loaded in a compact opening phrase, followed by use case, parameter summary, and return shape. The return format is stated twice, which is mildly redundant, but overall the description is appropriately sized and scannable.

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?

For a preview tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how it applies edits, and the critical no-write behavior, and it points to apply_edit as the actual mutation path. Minor gaps remain around edge-case behavior such as delete-mode results or invalid locations, but nothing essential blocks correct selection and invocation.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that the edits list is applied sequentially in memory to the same document, and by summarizing the element shape as {loc, new_content?, mode?, style?}.

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 and resource: batch preview edits, memory-only, with no write to disk. It explicitly returns per-edit {loc, before, after} and differentiates itself from the sibling apply_edit by positioning itself as a pre-check step.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: before actually applying edits via apply_edit, to verify whether a batch of modifications is as expected. It names apply_edit as the real-write alternative, though it does not enumerate when-not-to-use conditions or other sibling tools.

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