preview_node_create

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the ~100m OSM search, the blocking rule that same-family POIs and retail areas block apply until fresh inspection resolves them, the warning that failed/incomplete searches never establish absence, and the required review of diff and full SHA-256 digest. These are real operational constraints an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by dense, non-redundant constraint sentences; nothing reads as filler. It is longer than typical, but each sentence delivers a distinct constraint or prerequisite.

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 high-complexity preview tool with an output schema, it covers auth requirements, input constraints, search/blocking semantics, and the downstream apply workflow. Return values need not be described because the output schema exists, and the description still tells the agent what to inspect.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does so well for latitude/longitude (finite, in range, seven decimal places) and tags (1..20 nonempty strings with explicit POI classification and evidence source). It leaves changeset_comment and changeset_source only implicitly covered by 'evidence source,' so it does not compensate fully.

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 ('Preview one new POI') plus the defining constraint ('without writing to OSM'), which immediately separates it from the mutating sibling apply_osm_edit and from preview_node_tag_edit.

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 closing sentence places it clearly in the workflow: inspect geometry/tags/diff/SHA-256 here before a later apply_osm_edit and separate elicitation, and it states the auth prerequisite (verified OAuth/write_api). It does not explicitly contrast with preview_node_tag_edit, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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