preview_specification_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'preview' reasonably implies a non-mutating dry-run, which offers some transparency. However, the description does not disclose what the preview returns (diff, report, validation result), whether it is side-effect free, or whether it requires an existing row to match. These gaps lower the score.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb, resource, and key scoping terms. There is no filler. It is slightly spare but appropriately sized; it could be structured to enumerate parameters, yet it earns credit for efficiency.

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?

This is a complex 5-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. Given siblings like apply_specification_changes and preview_specification_generation, the description leaves out workflow context, the meaning of 'standard fields', the updates structure, and the preview result format. It is far from complete for safe, correct 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It loosely references 'object_id and standard fields' which maps onto the 'updates' array, but it never explains the structure of updates items, what object_id refers to, what 'standard fields' are, or the roles of document_id, layout_name, max_objects, and description_index. For a tool with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a substantial gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Preview'), resource ('specification rows'), and scope ('existing ... by object_id and standard fields'). This distinguishes it from siblings like apply_specification_changes (which applies rather than previews) and preview_specification_generation (which targets new rows rather than existing ones). The term 'standard fields' is slightly vague, so it doesn't quite reach 5.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as apply_specification_changes, preview_specification_generation, preview_specification_autofill, or get_specification. It provides no context about the intended pre-apply workflow or any exclusions. Without this, an agent cannot easily decide between preview and apply tools.

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