plc_preview_changes

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scope by saying it reads staged operations and changed archive members, but it does not explain transaction lifecycle behavior or what the preview contains beyond that broad phrase.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its timing.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations are rich, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, it leaves the required transaction_id parameter completely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter is a required transaction_id. The description never mentions transaction_id or explains that the preview is scoped to that transaction, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb, 'Read', and specific resources, 'staged operations and changed archive members'. The phrase 'before committing' clearly positions it as a preview operation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling commit tool.

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?

It gives clear timing context: use this before committing. It does not name exclusions or explicitly direct the agent to plc_commit_changes for the subsequent action, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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