preview_save_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds beyond that: it produces a preview and issues an approval token, and explicitly confirms it doesn't write. This is useful behavioral context that complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 with zero filler. The key point (preview before saving, token issuance, non-destructive) is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place. Extremely efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the return format (likely containing the token and final path) doesn't need to be described here. The description covers the tool's purpose and non-destructive nature, and combined with the schema and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention needing to pass the token to save_summary, but this is implied by the workflow and siblings.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema (e.g., title is noted as used in the filename). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb (미리 보여주고, 발급), resource (최종 파일 경로와 내용), and explicitly disclaims writing (파일을 쓰지 않습니다). This differentiates it from save_summary, which actually persists. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from 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 opens with '요약문을 저장하기 전에' (before saving), giving a clear temporal context. It implies a two-step flow with save_summary (which consumes the issued token), though it doesn't name the exact alternative. This is clear context without explicit exclusions or alternative names, so it earns a 4.

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