Preview Product Spot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the eventual apply only touches explicit empty tracks, revalidates item IDs, and that this preview reports host readback without asserting visual delivery verification — a meaningful honesty caveat about what the preview does and does not prove.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence packs several distinct caveats efficiently, though it mixes apply-stage behavior into a preview tool, slightly diluting focus.

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?

With a 100% covered schema, full annotations, and an output schema that removes any need to describe return values, the description only needs to supply the preview/apply relationship and its verification caveats — both of which it delivers. Only the sibling differentiation against preview_brand_spot is missing.

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% and every parameter (including the enum motion_style and defaulted track indices) is documented in the schema itself. The description's phrase 'from existing project items' loosely reinforces the asset_item_ids semantics but adds no 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 ('Preview') and resource ('a product-spot assembly from existing project items'), so the agent knows this is a read-only preview of a spot build. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling preview_brand_spot or from preview_motion_graphics_demo, which is the only real gap.

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?

By referencing 'the eventual apply' the description implies this is the preview step preceding an apply stage, which gives implicit usage context. However, it never names the apply sibling (e.g. apply_spot_workflow_plan) or states when to prefer this over preview_brand_spot, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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