preview_google_play_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read operation (review) but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. It lists what is reviewed but does not describe the return format or side effects. With no output schema, the agent gets limited insight into expected results.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and key components. The second sentence provides a clear usage hint. Every word is necessary and informative.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It omits parameter details, expected output, and behavioral specifics. For a preview tool that likely returns a structured report, the lack of detail reduces its completeness for an agent.

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 only 14% (only fetchRemoteDiff has a description). The description mentions 'optional remote diff' corresponding to fetchRemoteDiff, but it does not explain locales, displaySlots, includeAppIcon, includeListing, or includeScreenshots. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning for most parameters.

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 reviews what would be pushed to Google Play, listing specific components (blockers, warnings, locale plans, optional remote diff). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling push_to_google_play by saying 'Call before push_to_google_play'.

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 gives a clear usage directive: 'Call before push_to_google_play'. This tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not provide exclusions or mention alternatives like get_google_play_push_job, which might serve a different purpose.

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