splunk_preview_change

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does imply a non-mutating dry-run by calling itself a 'preview'. However, it never explicitly confirms that no changes are applied, whether the preview has side effects or quotas, or what permissions the operator needs, which is a real gap for an admin-scoped tool. Return values are covered by the existing output schema, so that omission is acceptable.

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 core statement is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, followed by a compact Args block. The structure is efficient, though the Args section restates schema titles almost verbatim rather than adding density.

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?

This is a three-required-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, so the description should do considerably more heavy lifting. An agent still cannot tell which operation strings are accepted, what a valid target looks like per operation, or how proposed_settings should be keyed — all of which are prerequisites for a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters, and it only offers minimal glosses: 'target' as 'Target resource identifier' and 'proposed_settings' as 'Proposed parameter values to evaluate'. It gives three example operation values but no enumeration of valid operations, no target-format convention per operation, and no indication of what shape proposed_settings must take despite the schema declaring a free-form nested object.

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 ('preview the impact') applied to a clear resource (a configuration or administrative modification), which makes the intent obvious. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related siblings such as splunk_validate_configuration or the actual mutation tools (splunk_update_index_settings, splunk_manage_role), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 'before executing it' implies a dry-run workflow, which gives the agent a usable trigger condition. But it never names an alternative (e.g. splunk_validate_configuration for schema validation vs. this tool for impact preview) nor states when the tool should be skipped, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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