generatePreviewScript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool produces a script rather than directly modifying the page, and that the injection is done via Chrome DevTools MCP evaluate_script. However, it doesn't mention return format, potential errors, or any edge-case behavior, leaving some uncertainty.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the numbered workflow is well organized for a multi-step tool. It is longer than minimal but every step serves a practical role. Some redundancy exists at the end ('This approach uses Chrome DevTools MCP and execute_script'), but it doesn't detract significantly.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it provides the full interaction flow, explicit timeout guidance, page-loading instructions, and an approval gate. An agent would know exactly how to invoke and sequence this tool end-to-end.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by contextualizing them: url is tied to navigate_to loading, modifications are tied to user-visible selector changes and later injection, and description is tied to the preview explanation. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('preview script for Chrome DevTools MCP') and clearly states the purpose: inject modifications into a live page. The workflow line 'Wait for user approval before creating the activity' distinguishes it from the sibling createActivityFromModifications, even though that sibling isn't named.

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?

A numbered 7-step workflow gives explicit context for when to call the tool, what to do before, and how to follow up with navigate_to and evaluate_script. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the sequencing is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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