Resolve a rundown item (dry run — does not go to air)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces that nothing is sent, and adds details about validation and return payload. No contradictions.

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?

Two paragraphs: first explains purpose and usage, second lists args and returns. No redundant information. Slightly verbose but efficient overall.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return object structure (template, subComposition, payload, unmappedFields, missingNodes, wouldSend). Combined with clear purpose and guidelines, it is fully informative.

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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds meaning by listing args in plain language: 'template (name)', 'fields (storyField → value)', 'response_format'. Also describes return fields, providing context beyond schema.

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 clearly states 'dry run — does not go to air' and explains it resolves a rundown item against its template without sending. It distinguishes from sibling play_rundown_item by specifying it does not send.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to preview/verify before air' and contrasts with play_rundown_item. The description makes clear when to use (preview) and when not (actual air).

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