preview_business_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description relies on the word 'preview' to imply a non-destructive, pre-publish operation. It does not explicitly disclose that nothing is published, whether the agent is actually invoked, or what side effects might occur.

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 two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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?

The definition is minimally viable for a simple preview tool, but with no annotations and no output schema it could usefully clarify that the operation does not publish changes and what the returned response looks like. Optional parameter context is left to the schema.

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 input schema already documents business_agent_id, message, and conversation_id, covering 75% of parameters. The description's 'Provide a test message' largely repeats the schema's message description and adds no new meaning for ad_account_id or parameter relationships.

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 clearly states the action ('Preview a response') on a specific resource ('Business Agent') and ties it to QA before publishing. It is distinct from publish_business_agent by implication, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 'Useful for QA before publishing' gives a clear situational context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as publish_business_agent.

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