whodb_platform_preview_shared_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that workspace targeting is per-call and 'without changing defaults' — but says nothing about what the preview produces or validates, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 purpose followed by the targeting constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is terse enough that it under-explicates rather than over-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?

With no output schema, the description carries more burden for a tool whose result is a 'preview', yet it never describes what the preview returns or how to construct the required opaque input_json beyond 'matching the selected package preview input type'. For a preview operation the safety profile is fine, but the agent is left to infer the call's shape and output.

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 all three parameters (fields, workspace, input_json) are already well documented in the schema, including the workspace default-resolution chain. The description's restatement of workspace {host, org, project} and 'without changing defaults' only marginally extends the schema, which sets the baseline at 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Preview import of a shared package'), and the word 'shared' distinguishes it somewhat from generic siblings like whodb_platform_preview_import_package. However, it never explains what 'preview' means here (dry-run? validation?) or how it differs from the several other preview_* siblings such as preview_install_package or preview_shared_install.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing among the many preview/import siblings. The only usage hint ('per-call targeting without changing defaults') is embedded and does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus its alternatives.

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