accept_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('accept') but does not specify what changes are made, whether the action is reversible, or if any side effects occur. Minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. While there is no unnecessary text, it fails to provide adequate detail for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It omits what accepting entails, what the preview_token represents, and what the outcome is. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for the two required parameters ('project_id' and 'preview_token'). The agent cannot discern their semantic roles or expected formats from the given text.

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 'Accept pending AI-generated changes' clearly indicates the tool's action (accept) and object (pending AI-generated changes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'preview_email_template' or 'discard_draft_changes' by focusing on accepting AI-generated content, though the exact scope (project-level changes?) is slightly vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'discard_draft_changes' or 'preview_email_template'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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