preview_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not change the design, which is a key safety trait, but it leaves unclear what 'store preview artifacts' entails, whether an active transaction is required, or if there are side effects beyond storing metadata.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the critical non-mutation guarantee. It contains no fluff and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 and a single simple parameter, the description is reasonably complete, but it does not explain the transaction lifecycle or how preview_transaction relates to sibling tools like begin_transaction, validate_transaction, or commit_transaction. The non-mutation guarantee is helpful, but the artifact storage semantics remain vague.

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 one required parameter, txid, and the description does not mention it at all, resulting in 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to the parameter, failing to explain how txid is used or why it is needed.

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 the tool stores preview artifacts and returns bounded metadata, explicitly noting it does not change the design. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from mutation tools like commit_transaction or rollback_transaction.

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 a non-mutating preview use case through 'without changing the design,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as validate_transaction or begin_transaction, nor does it state when to use this tool over them. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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