preview_save_report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds crucial context: approval_token is issued only after structural validation, the token is a hash of (report_id, body) ensuring content integrity, and it does not replace user approval. This goes beyond the annotations to explain the tool's internal logic and constraints.

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, leading with the core purpose, then workflow details, a security warning, and parameter documentation. It is somewhat long but each section serves a purpose. It could be tightened by omitting the redundant parameter descriptions, but overall it is organized and front-loaded.

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 an output schema (PreviewResponse) and is part of a multi-step workflow, the description fully covers the operational flow: when the token is generated, how to use the response, and the explicit order of operations. The agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and know what to expect without any gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema text without adding new meaning. It does not reveal, for example, the impact of include_preview on token generation or how max_preview_chars interacts with validation. It meets the baseline but adds no extra insight.

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 it shows the save target, changes, and validation results, and issues an approval token. It explicitly positions itself as the 'single gateway before saving' and distinguishes from save_approved_report, which is the actual save operation. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 explains it must be used before saving, and explicitly instructs that save_approved_report should be called only after showing the approval_request to the user and receiving explicit approval. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and references the sibling tool directly.

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