preview_page_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that no writing occurs, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any other behaviors such as validation errors, performance impact, or whether it modifies any state. The disclosure of 'without writing' is useful but minimal.

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 description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits parameter details that could be included without bloat. It is front-loaded with the key action, but the lack of parameter context makes it less efficient for agent interpretation.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the return format might be covered there, but the description fails to explain the input parameters. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no schema descriptions, this is incomplete. The agent cannot determine valid values for 'buttons_json' or the expected format.

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 description provides no explanation for the two parameters 'page' and 'buttons_json'. With 0% schema coverage, the agent must guess their meanings. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema offers.

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 it validates and previews a batch page-style operation and specifies it does not write to Companion. The verb 'preview' distinguishes it from apply tools like 'apply_page_style_transaction' or 'set_page_style'. However, 'batch page-style operation' is somewhat vague but still conveys the core action.

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 saying 'without writing to Companion', but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus apply alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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