preview_editorial_plan

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool revalidates against saved project-context revisions, returns an opaque token, and has no plan-application effect. The annotations already include readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces and enriches that safety profile without contradicting it.

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 tight sentences deliver the operation, constraints, and result with no filler. The key behavioral limitation (read-only, cannot apply) is front-loaded near the end of the first sentence and repeated precisely.

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?

The single parameter and read-only validation use case are well covered, and the opaque token return is acknowledged. However, with no output schema, the description does not mention failure behavior, error semantics, or what happens if the plan no longer matches saved revisions.

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%, and the plan parameter's schema description already states it must be the unchanged plan from create_editorial_plan on this running server instance. The opening line's 'exact server-issued' repeats this without adding substantial new meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'Revalidate' against a defined resource, the server-issued editorial plan, and states it returns an opaque confirmation token. The sentence also explicitly says the tool cannot apply the plan, which clearly distinguishes it from apply_editorial_plan or similar 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 clarifies that this is the read-only, no-op validation step for an exact server-issued editorial plan, and separately states that it cannot apply the plan. It does not explicitly name the alternative apply tool or specify a 'when not to use' besides applying, so it is informative but not exhaustive.

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