nws_preview_change

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that this is non-mutating and that the confirmation ID expires after 10 minutes. It does not say what happens when a commit arrives after expiry, whether the preview validates the values, or whether it locks the entity against concurrent edits.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and closing with the concrete artifact returned. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but with zero annotation coverage, four undocumented parameters, and a required commit/cancel handoff, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke this correctly in a larger workflow.

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% across all four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The words 'create, update, or delete' loosely map to the required operation field and 'values' is hinted at, but entity_type, identity, and the expected shape of values are left entirely undocumented.

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) plus the set of operations being previewed (create, update, delete) and its distinctive output (a confirmation ID). It is clearly distinguished from a read or list tool, though it never names the natural partners nws_commit_change and nws_cancel_change.

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 10-minute confirmation ID implicitly conveys that this is a two-step flow, but the description never says to call nws_commit_change to apply the change or nws_cancel_change to discard it. For a preview tool whose entire reason to exist is the paired commit/cancel siblings, that omission leaves the workflow to inference.

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