preview_deletion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this by stating 'Preview' and 'before actually deleting it,' and adds context about showing affected sub-entities and warnings. This adds moderate value beyond the annotations, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The description explains what the preview shows (affected sub-entities, relations, warnings) and lists supported entity types. Since there is no output schema, this is helpful. However, it lacks details on the output format or how to interpret the preview results, which would be valuable for an agent to process the response.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema. The description adds marginal value by restating the supported entity types and clarifying that 'identifier' is required for issue, component, and milestone but ignored for project. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: previewing the impact of deleting a Huly entity. It specifies supported entity types and what is shown (affected sub-entities, relations, warnings). The verb 'preview' and the phrase 'before actually deleting it' make the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling delete tools by positioning itself as a preparatory step.

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 description explicitly advises using this tool before calling a delete operation: 'Use this to understand cascade effects before calling a delete operation.' It implies the tool is for analysis, not action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context makes it clear.

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