preview_changes

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing what is surfaced: pending commands, plugin installs, and conflicts with OpenDeck edits made after staging.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the scope and then unpacks the three content categories. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical warnings list makes it slightly long.

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 structure need not be spelled out, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers what is previewed but omits the when-to-use context that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

There is one optional parameter with 100% schema coverage, including an enum whose two modes are fully described in the schema. The description adds nothing about 'detail', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Show') and a precisely scoped resource ('everything staged'), then enumerates the content: per device/profile/slot changes, warnings, and conflicts. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_overview, discard_changes, and apply_changes without opening 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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the read step before apply_changes or discard_changes — but the description never states when to use it, and does not rule out lookalikes such as get_overview or render_profile.

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