nws_preview_attachment_removal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the underlying action is permanent and that this tool previews it, but it does not clarify that the preview itself is non-mutating, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or what state is being previewed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, even though other dimensions need more detail.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough. The output schema can cover return values, but the description still leaves the required parameters and preview behavior under-explained.

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 0%, so the description must explain the two required parameters. It hints that the target may be an attachment or territory map, which partially maps to entity_type, but it says nothing about the required identity parameter or accepted values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: preview the permanent removal of an attachment or territory map. It is clear enough to distinguish from commit/cancel removal siblings by the word 'preview,' though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 this is a dry-run step before an actual removal, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus nws_commit_attachment_removal or nws_cancel_attachment_change, nor does it list prerequisites.

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