Preview issue tree control changes

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds only the operation path and authorization class. It does not clarify whether the preview actually persists changes or what side effects occur.

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 very short (two sentences), which is concise but sacrifices essential details. It could include parameter guidance and output expectations without becoming verbose.

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 nested input schema and presence of an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to describe what the preview returns, how to use the parameters, or how the tool fits into the broader tree control workflow.

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%. The description does not explain any parameters, including the mode enum (pause, resume, cancel, restore) or the releasePolicy nested object, which are critical for correct usage.

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 the tool previews tree control changes, which is a clear verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools by including 'preview' in the name, but the description doesn't explicitly contrast with other tree control tools.

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?

Only authorization class is provided. No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_post_issues_by_id_tree_holds or pc_get_issues_by_id_tree_control_state.

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