preview_page_layout_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 says 'preview,' which implies non-destructive, but it does not explain what the preview actually does (e.g., validate, render, return a diff) or whether there are any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be expected to be read-only.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word is relevant.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as what 'afterCanvas' represents, what the preview will return, and how it fits into the update workflow. This leaves the agent with many unresolved questions.

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 provides no descriptions for 'pageId' or 'afterCanvas' (coverage 0%), and the description does not compensate. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no detail about what 'afterCanvas' should contain or how 'pageId' is used, leaving the agent to infer.

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: to preview a page canvas layout update. It uses a specific verb ('preview') and identifies the resource ('page canvas layout update'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'apply_page_layout_update' and preview tools for other resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to preview before applying, or how it relates to 'apply_page_layout_update'. Without context, an agent may not know if this is a safe check before a mutating operation.

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