exposure_slice

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Apply' implies a mutation, but it does not state whether this is idempotent, reversible, what side effects occur, if authorization is required, or what happens to existing exposure settings. The behavior of 'resolve' is also ambiguous.

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 compact and uses a clear bullet-like structure for parameter details. It wastes little space. However, the cryptic 'AS-8' and the incomplete first sentence reduce immediate clarity, and the line breaks between the prose and the parameter definitions could be more coherent.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters with no schema description coverage. The description explains multiple parameters but omits the overall effect, expected return value, failure modes, and relationships to sibling tools. It is not sufficient for an agent to confidently know when and how to invoke it.

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 compensates by explaining destination (allowed values), preset (overrides default), and fields (custom dotted paths/checkbox IDs). It does not explain app_id or agent_id, but those are conventional identifiers and less ambiguous. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 phrase 'Resolve and apply an exposure preset' and identifies a resource (preset) with a target destination. It also lists valid destination values, giving concrete scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like exposure_config_get or agent_seed_mirror, and the term 'seed destination (AS-8)' is jargon that is not unpacked.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as exposure_config_get, session_enter, or agent_seed_mirror. It does not state prerequisites, warnings, or exclusion conditions. The listed destination/preset/fields are parameter hints, not usage context.

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