workspace_quick_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it enables preview mode without publishing and returns errors, but does not cover side effects (e.g., whether preview persists, impacts other users), idempotency, or required permissions. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: purpose, non-publish behavior, and return value.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return value (preview container version and compilation errors), which is sufficient. It could clarify that the link is part of the response, but for a simple tool this is adequately complete.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the three required parameters (accountId, containerId, workspaceId). It does not explain their purpose, format, or valid values, forcing the agent to rely solely on the 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 clearly states the tool generates a quick-preview link for a GTM workspace, explicitly distinguishing it from publishing. It specifies a specific verb (generate) and resource (preview link), which differentiates it from sibling workspace tools like workspace_get_status or workspace_sync.

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 states it does NOT publish, telling the agent when to use this tool (for preview mode) and when not (for actual publishing). It lacks explicit alternative references, but the clear purpose and limitation provide adequate usage guidance.

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