preview_save_minutes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds rich behavioral context beyond that: the approval_token is a hash of (note_id, body) guaranteeing content integrity, the token does NOT replace user approval, and the token is only issued when validation passes. This precisely discloses the safety-critical behavior of the tool without contradicting any annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical safety warning, then clean Args and Returns sections. It is longer than average, but every section earns its place — especially the bolded warning that the token doesn't replace user approval, which is essential for correct usage. Slightly verbose but well-organized.

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 description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, usage sequence, safety guarantee regarding content integrity, the requirement for explicit user approval, and the routing to save_approved_minutes. The output schema (PreviewResponse) handles return-value details, so the description's Returns section listing status, approval_token, validation, grounding, diff, and approval_request is sufficient. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema's own descriptions are unusually thorough — include_preview even explains the context-saving tradeoff. The description's Args section largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents all four parameters well and the description adds only marginal context.

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 purpose: 'shows save target, changes, validation, grounding results at once and issues an approval token' — a single gateway before saving. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling save_approved_minutes by being the pre-save preview step. The verb+resource combination makes the tool's role unmistakable and differentiates it from the other validation/preview siblings.

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 explicitly positions itself as the 'single gateway right before saving' and provides a precise usage sequence: show approval_request to the user, wait for explicit approval, then call save_approved_minutes. It also states the condition for token issuance (structural validation must pass). This is ideal routing guidance that names the next tool to use and the precondition for use.

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