whodb_platform_preview_create_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds value: it states the call returns validation issues (a preview surface) and that workspace targeting is per-call and 'without changing defaults'. It does not, however, detail what validation output looks like or any auth requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the workspace note. Nothing is wasted, though it is thin rather than optimally informative.

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 read-only preview with no output schema, the description does signal what comes back (contents and validation issues) and clarifies the per-call workspace override. The main residual gap is that the shape of the required input_json is never explained.

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 100%, so the workspace/fields semantics are already documented in the schema; the description's restatement of {host, org, project} targeting is largely redundant. The required input_json remains opaque ('matching the selected package preview input type') in both places, so no compensation happens. Baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb (preview) and resource (package contents and validation issues) plus its timing relative to creation. That distinguishes it from the import/install preview siblings, but it never names the actual create tool it precedes, leaving the routing one step short of a 5.

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?

"before creating a package" implies the moment to use it, but there is no explicit when-not, no named alternative (e.g. the create package sibling or the import/install previews), and no prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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