whodb_platform_preview_shared_install

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that workspace targeting is per-call and 'without changing defaults,' but says nothing about cost, latency, or what the preview surfaces.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter note following. No wasted clauses, though the second sentence could be tightened.

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, the return is the substance, and with no output schema the description should clarify what the preview reveals (e.g., planned changes, conflicts). The safety and targeting context is adequate, but the agent does not know what a successful preview yields.

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 fields, workspace (host/org/project), and input_json fully. The description merely restates the workspace shape without adding syntax, constraints, or examples beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (installation of a shared package), which lets an agent identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings such as preview_install_package or preview_shared_import, leaving the 'shared' qualifier's significance unexplained.

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 word 'Preview' implies a dry-run and the sentence notes per-call workspace targeting, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives like preview_install_package or the actual install tool. Guidance is left almost entirely to inference.

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