preview_item_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Preview a list item field update' without mentioning what the preview returns, whether it validates data, if it has side effects, or any permission requirements. The term 'preview' hints at non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, focused sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from more detail. The structure is clear and front-loaded, but the extreme brevity borders on under-specification.

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 has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the preview shows, how the parameters interact, or what the response looks like. A user would have no idea what to expect from this tool beyond its name.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter details. The description only mentions 'field update', which maps to the 'fields' parameter, but provides no information about itemId, listId, or the structure of the fields object. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no real semantic value.

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: 'Preview a list item field update.' It uses a specific verb ('preview') and a specific resource ('list item field update'), distinguishing it from siblings like apply_item_update and preview_list_update. The term 'preview' unambiguously indicates a dry-run operation.

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 word 'preview' implies this tool should be used before applying an update, and the sibling 'apply_item_update' suggests a related workflow. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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