Preview Brand Spot

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the operation is local-only and does not read or import the MOGRT file. This prevents an agent from assuming the MOGRT path is consumed or validated at preview time. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, and the second adds the critical local-only constraint. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is 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 a 12-parameter input schema with 100% coverage and a safety profile already declared by annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. The optional MOGRT path constraint and local-only behavior are surfaced in the description, while parameter defaults and edge conditions are fully handled by the schema.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters, including path requirements and defaults. The description adds only high-level context such as 'existing project items' and 'optional workspace-contained MOGRT overlay,' which maps loosely to asset_item_ids and mogrt_path but does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Preview a brand-spot assembly from existing project items with an optional workspace-contained MOGRT overlay.' It also distinguishes the tool from related behaviors by clarifying that preview is local-only and does not read or import the MOGRT file, separating it from import-like or apply-like siblings.

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 supplies clear usage context: preview operates on existing project items and takes an optional workspace-contained MOGRT overlay. It also states an explicit exclusion — preview is local-only and does not read/import the MOGRT file — which helps an agent avoid choosing it when an actual import or apply is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the local-only caveat provides meaningful selection guidance.

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