whodb_platform_preview_import_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: workspace targeting is per-call and does not change session defaults. It does not describe what the preview output contains or any side-effect-free confirmation flow.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly marred by devoting half the text to workspace targeting that the schema already explains.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description does name what is previewed (contents, requirements, conflicts). But it omits how this preview differs from the several near-identical preview siblings and what the agent should do with the result, leaving a real gap in a crowded tool family.

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 schema already documents workspace, input_json, and fields in detail, including the per-call targeting semantics. The description essentially restates the workspace behavior, adding little beyond what the structured schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb (Preview) and resource (package import), and names what is surfaced: contents, requirements, and conflicts. An agent can tell this is a read-only preview. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many closely-named siblings (preview_install_package, preview_shared_import, preview_create_package), so it stays at 4.

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 second sentence is parameter guidance about workspace targeting, not when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over preview_install_package or the other preview/bundle siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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