switch_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the critical non-destructive aspect ('without going to air') which is valuable behavioral context. But it doesn't mention whether this affects the current preview state irreversibly, permissions, or any side effects—moderate transparency at best.

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, front-loaded with the key action and constraint. No wasted words. Could be slightly more efficient by integrating the list_sources hint more smoothly, but it's tight and purposeful.

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 simple mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and a key constraint, but omits any return behavior, error conditions, or timing considerations (e.g., does it take effect immediately?). Adequate but with clear gaps for full contextual completeness.

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%, so the parameter documentation is already in the schema with examples ('input2', 'ddr1', 'gfx2'). The description only adds the reference to list_sources for valid names, which is marginal. Baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('set the Preview row to a new source') and explicitly disambiguates from going to air, which is critical distinction. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling 'switch_program' which appears to be the on-air counterpart. Still clear enough about what it does.

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 implies this is the preview operation (not on-air) and directs to list_sources for valid names, which is implied usage guidance. But it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus switch_program or other transition tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the switcher workflow.

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