Create a Micro preview

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it is a build-and-upload operation that intentionally avoids project creation and slug claiming. It does not explain what 'opaque' means or what happens to the uploaded preview, but the annotations already cover the basic safety profile.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the core action and immediately states the key constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and non-effects, while the main minor gap is the lack of an explicit relationship to closely related sibling tools like micro_build or micro_deploy.

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 only parameter, 'path', has 100% schema description coverage, including its default behavior ('defaults to the server working directory'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter guidance, 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?

The description states a specific action ('Build and upload') and a specific resource ('an opaque preview'), and clarifies what it does not do ('without creating a project or claiming a slug'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like micro_build and micro_deploy.

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 phrase 'without creating a project or claiming a slug' gives a clear selection criterion for when to use this tool: when a preview is needed but no full project or slug should be created. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it.

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