Create Python metric preview

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds the non-obvious operational trait that this mutation is asynchronous and returns immediately rather than producing a result. It does not disclose a rate limit, cost, or what happens if a duplicate preview is started for the same draft, which is relevant given idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two operational facts that matter. Slight redundancy between 'asynchronous preview' and 'Preview execution is asynchronous', but no filler otherwise.

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?

Covers the async lifecycle well, but with no output schema the agent is not told what the call returns (presumably a preview ID or handle) or which tool to poll with, which is exactly what an agent needs to complete the flow it prescribes. Adequate for a two-parameter create tool, but with a clear missing link.

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 50%: draft_id is documented in the schema, but simulation_output_ids has no description at all, and its minItems/maxItems=1 constraint is unexplained. The description mentions neither parameter, so it does nothing to close the coverage gap on the one undocumented required parameter.

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 and resource ('Start an asynchronous preview of an immutable Python metric draft'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_python_metric_preview, cancel_python_metric_preview and publish_python_metric_draft. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the lifecycle language rather than spelled out.

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?

Gives real workflow guidance: preview is asynchronous, poll until a terminal state, and only publish after a successful preview. It stops short of naming the tool used to poll (get_python_metric_preview) or stating what to do on failure beyond not publishing.

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