Preview timeline as an Artifact

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

Annotations only mark it as not read-only and not destructive. The description adds meaningful context: it runs the full build and every check, publishes nothing, leaves the timeline's status and live pages alone, and returns a preview_path. This goes well 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers behavioral guarantees and return-value instructions. Each sentence is useful, though there is minor redundancy between 'build' and 'runs the full build.'

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?

Even with no output schema, the description explains the return value (preview_path), the next action (publish with the Artifact tool), side-effect behavior, and when it is safe to call. For a single-parameter tool, this is fully adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has one parameter, timeline_id, with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'current draft' but never explains that timeline_id identifies which timeline to preview. The agent must infer this from the tool and parameter names, which is a gap at this coverage level.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it builds the current draft into one self-contained HTML page as a Claude Artifact for preview. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like publish_timeline and build_timeline by emphasizing that nothing is published and live pages are untouched.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('safe to call after every round of edits') and frames it as pre-publication preview. It does not name alternatives directly, but the usage context and exclusions (no publishing, no live-site changes) are clear.

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