whodb_platform_ontology_action_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral content by describing what the preview returns (allowance status, proposed changes, emitted events) and the per-call workspace targeting semantics. It does not cover failure modes or limits of the preview, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its non-execution guarantee, followed by next-step guidance and the targeting note. No filler or repetition of schema boilerplate beyond what is needed for context.

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 carries the return-value burden and does summarize the three things a preview yields, plus the follow-up tool and workspace targeting. It stops short of describing the shape or granularity of the proposed-changes/events payload, so an agent still has some uncertainty about what it will receive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-level addition is restating that workspace {host, org, project} targets a single call without changing defaults, which the schema already documents; record_key, values and fields get no mention.

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?

Specific verb (preview) plus resource (behavior action), with an explicit negation of what it does not do (without executing it). It also enumerates the preview payload — allowance, proposed changes, emitted events — so the agent can distinguish it from the sibling execution tool 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?

States the workflow condition directly: preview, show the result to the user, then execute via whodb_platform_action. The alternative tool is named explicitly, so the preview-then-execute pattern is unambiguous rather than inferred.

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