nws_public_witnessing_preview_repeat_template

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 implies a non-mutating preview and states a 1-8 week constraint, but it does not state whether anything is persisted, what the preview returns, or what happens to the preview object afterwards.

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 efficient sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but the phrasing itself wastes nothing.

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 covers return values, but for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves core calling details – start_week format, id semantics, and preview lifecycle – unexplained.

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 compensate, and it only clarifies one parameter ('weeks' bounded 1-8). The format of the required 'start_week' string and the roles of 'location_id' and 'template_id' remain completely 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 repeating'), a specific resource ('public witnessing template'), and a scope ('one to eight weeks'). The word 'Preview' implicitly separates it from the sibling commit_repeat_template, though the description never names that sibling.

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 a dry-run before an actual commit, which is the intended workflow, but the description never says when to use this versus nws_public_witnessing_commit_repeat_template or how the preview is resolved.

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