Preview private Provider overlay

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds the concrete behavioral detail that it does not alter Clash Verge. This reinforces the read-only nature without contradicting annotations.

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 entire description is two sentences: the first states the operation, the second clarifies no side effects. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return format is covered elsewhere. However, the description leaves parameter semantics unexplained and lacks explicit context for when to apply versus preview, creating gaps for an agent selecting the tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description only alludes to 'exact-domain additions' and 'optional Provider enablement' without explaining config_path, critical_domains, or enabled semantics. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses 'Preview' as a specific verb and identifies the resource 'local private overlay' with 'exact-domain additions' and 'optional Provider enablement'. It clearly distinguishes itself from apply_provider_overlay by stating it does not write files.

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 description implies this is a safe dry-run by explicitly stating 'This does not write files or change Clash Verge,' but it does not name alternative tools or state conditions for when to use preview versus apply. Thus usage guidance is implied, not explicit.

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