nws_public_witnessing_preview_assignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that the preview is non-persistent, that a subsequent commit is required to apply the assignment, what the preview returns, or whether permissions are needed — only the single word 'Preview' hints at the dry-run nature.

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 compact sentence with the assign/clear distinction front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing workflow and parameter context.

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 need not be explained, but for a four-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage the definition is too thin. The preview→commit workflow and the meanings of date, shift_id, and position are absent.

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% and none of the four parameter titles are self-explanatory. The description does explain person_id (a person id, or 0 to clear), but says nothing about date, shift_id, or what 'position' indexes, leaving three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (preview assigning/clearing) and resource (one shift position), and explains the two operating modes via person_id vs 0. It does not name the commit/cancel counterparts, so the agent must infer the preview-vs-commit relationship from the naming convention.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus nws_public_witnessing_commit_assignment or nws_public_witnessing_cancel_assignment, nor whether a preview is a required step before committing. The only signal is the word 'preview' in the name, which is inferred rather than stated.

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