preview_track_road_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful nuance: the stored proposal is bound to a verified OSM account and API target, and read-only access is not anonymous. This gives the agent critical context about authentication and side effects beyond the annotations.

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 four sentences, all of which carry useful information: purpose, OAuth caveat, alternative path, and apply confirmation. It is compact and front-loaded, though slightly dense due to the number of caveats packed into a short paragraph.

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?

The description covers the high-level intent, authorization requirements, and sibling distinctions, but leaves the 16-parameter contract entirely unaddressed. With zero schema descriptions and a complex request shape, an agent still lacks essential guidance for constructing a valid invocation.

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% and the description does not discuss any of the 16 parameters. Required fields such as action, changeset_comment, and changeset_source are completely unexplained, and the description makes no attempt to compensate for the schema gap.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Build') and a precise resource ('non-writing GeoJSON and element diff preview for a road edit'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It also distinguishes this from the applying step by noting that applying requires a separate digest-bound confirmation, which separates it from sibling apply_track_road_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 description explicitly states that OAuth with write_api is required, clarifies that read-only means no OSM upload and not anonymous access, and names a concrete alternative for an OAuth-free geometry view. It also notes that applying the proposal requires a separate confirmation, so an agent knows not to use this tool for the final write.

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