build_character_preview

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: reuse of a valid completed preview, a shared lock, and that uncertain editor dispatch blocks automatic retries — an important operational constraint. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and requiring Blender plus a registered source are notable dependencies.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and prerequisites at the end; little wasted wording. Front-loading the workflow relationship first is effective.

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?

An output schema exists so return details needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, but for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage the description leaves parameter usage entirely undocumented. Adequate on behavior, incomplete on invocation.

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 description never explains job_id, attempt, or sample_index. The mention of 'chooses an unused attempt' and 'reuses a valid completed preview' hints obliquely at the attempt/sample_index semantics, but there is no usable guidance on their meaning or interaction.

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 specific verbs (prepare, execute, verify) and a specific resource (a registered character preview), and distinguishes itself from the handoff family by being a preview workflow. The phrase 'registered character preview' and 'same workflow as the studio' are jargon-heavy, but an agent can still tell this builds a preview rather than executing a handoff.

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?

Implies usage through 'reuses a valid completed preview or chooses an unused attempt' and lists prerequisites (supported registered source, Blender), which gives useful context. However, it never says when to choose this over the nearby prepare_/execute_blender_handoff tools or what conditions make it inappropriate.

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