nws_preview_duty_auto_assign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important behavioral trait that this is a non-mutating preview that yields a confirmation ID for a later commit. However, it is silent on whether the preview creates any pending state, how long the confirmation ID stays valid, and whether a running desktop app is required — real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 core action and return value are front-loaded in one sentence, with parameter semantics following in compact clauses. Slightly dense phrasing ('the last two arguments mirror the local desktop settings') costs a bit of clarity but nothing is wasted.

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-format detail is not required, and the description covers the intent, the confirmation-ID handoff, and five of six parameters. The missing 'weeks' semantics and the absence of any desktop-app dependency note are the only meaningful omissions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: start_date is explained as a duties schedule row with its Monday/Saturday rule, duty_types gets the valid Duty1P1…Duty9P2 range and default, recent_filter gets its enum values, and the last two args are tied to desktop defaults. Only 'weeks' is left completely unexplained.

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+resource ('Preview the desktop duty auto-assignment') and notes the key output ('return a confirmation ID'), which clearly separates it from siblings nws_commit_duty_auto_assign and nws_cancel_duty_auto_assign. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands just below the top mark.

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 preview-then-confirm-ID framing implies the intended workflow (preview now, commit later with the returned ID), but the description never says to use this before nws_commit_duty_auto_assign or what to do if the preview is rejected. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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