Preview Mogrt Library Publish

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that no file or directory is created during preview and that the publish is no-overwrite, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, zero filler, with the dry-run nature and the no-side-effect guarantee front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description covers scope, preconditions, and side-effect behavior. Slightly thin on explicit routing to the non-preview publish tool, which is the only real gap.

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 already documents all four parameters (mogrt_path, template_name, library_directory, approved_workspace_path). The description reinforces that the library root must exist but adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 plus resource ('Preview a no-overwrite publish of a validated MOGRT into a ... library') and clearly frames it as the dry-run counterpart to publish_mogrt_to_library. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling publish tool without opening either 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?

Gives clear preconditions ('validated MOGRT', 'library root must already exist') but never explicitly names the alternative (publish_mogrt_to_library) or states when-not to use it. Usage is strongly implied rather than spelled out.

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