preview_save_report

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds significant behavioral context: the token is bound to the exact draft content, any edit invalidates it, and the tool prevents saving a different draft after preview. It also discloses overwrite behavior and the need to alert a human, going well beyond 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 description is well-structured with a clear lead stating the core purpose and the 'does not write' caveat, followed by crucial token-binding and overwrite warnings, then an Args/Returns/Examples block. Every sentence adds value; it's thorough without being bloated.

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?

For a gate-check tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: the gate logic (structure and grounds checks), token binding, overwrite implications, and usage timing. It distinguishes from the sibling that covers grounds only, and the return type is mentioned. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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 already describes both parameters (path and draft) fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about the draft parameter—namely that the token is sensitive to any change in its content, which affects how the agent should treat it. It also clarifies path as the original file, matching the schema but reinforcing usage.

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's purpose: it verifies that a draft passes the save gate and issues an approval token, explicitly noting it does not write. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming check_summary_grounding as the alternative for when only grounds are needed, and the context implies it precedes save_approved_report.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: use it after passing grounds comparison and right before saving; do not use it when only grounds are needed, pointing to check_summary_grounding. It also warns about overwriting and instructs to inform a human first, covering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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