preview

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which matches 'without writing anything' and removes the need to argue safety. The description still adds genuinely new behavior: it returns a one-time confirmation code, and that code must accompany identical arguments on the real write. However, it doesn't explain what the caller gets when checks DO block, or the lifetime/scope of the code beyond 'one-time'.

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 behavioral contract is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args block is clearly separated. Every sentence — including the exclusion of confirmation_code from `args` — prevents a concrete misuse and earns its place.

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 two-parameter dry-run wrapper with nested free-form args, the description supplies the action vocabulary, the argument mapping, and the confirmation-code handshake. An output schema exists, so the omission of detailed return-value documentation is not a gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden and it does: it enumerates all seven valid values for `action` (the schema gives no enum) and defines `args` as the exact arguments for the downstream tool, explicitly excluding confirmation_code. This is information that exists nowhere in the structured schema.

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?

States a specific verb (preview/show exactly what a write would do) and a precise scope (every check result, no side effects). This immediately distinguishes it from the sibling write tools it simulates, without requiring the agent to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: call this first, receive a one-time confirmation code when no check blocks, then pass that code to the write tool with the identical arguments. It also names the exact alternatives (the seven write actions) so the agent knows which tool this gates.

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