inkbolt_session_dry_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it returns a content-bound proposal, predicted receipt, structural differences, and optional PNG/pixel comparison, which tells the agent what a dry run produces even though an output schema exists.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the non-mutation guarantee, followed by the return payload and the commit pointer. Every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 complex 8-parameter tool with a deferred action schema (variant resolved via schema.lookup), the description covers purpose, output shape and workflow but leaves concurrency/optimistic-locking semantics (expected_revision) and the action variants unexplained. Adequate as a minimum, but not fully proportioned to the tool's complexity.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. It hints at options.preview/compare_pixels via 'optional PNG/pixel comparison', yet the required expected_revision, session_id, request_id and the multi-variant action union receive no explanation in the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Evaluate any session action on the expected head') plus the crucial differentiating property ('without changing the database'). It also names the sibling that performs the real commit (session.apply_proposal), so an agent can distinguish dry-run from apply without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the preview-then-commit workflow ('Use session.apply_proposal with the same action to commit after review'), which is real when-to-use guidance pointing at an alternative. It stops short of covering the broader sibling set (session_apply, session_diff, run) or stating when a dry run is unnecessary.

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