Preview remediation patch

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating it is a 'dry run', meaning no side effects. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations, clarifying the tool's non-destructive nature.

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 short and to the point, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted list of arguments. No redundant information. It is appropriately sized and well-structured, though it could be slightly more concise by removing the 'Args:' label.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description does not hint at the output format (e.g., list of operations). For a tool that returns patch operations, some context on the structure would improve completeness. Overall adequate but not fully 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's parameter explanations closely mirror the schema descriptions (e.g., 'The ISO 20022 message document' vs 'An ISO 20022 message as XML'). The value added over the schema is minimal, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Return the patch operations remediation would apply (a dry run).' This clearly states the tool provides a dry-run preview of remediation patches. The verb 'preview' and resource 'patch' are unambiguous, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like 'remediate_message' which applies the patch.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'assess_message' and 'remediate_message' exist, but no comparison or context is provided. Users are left to infer the appropriate use case for a dry run vs actual remediation.

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