preview_track_road_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest context by specifying that the output is a GeoJSON and element diff preview, but it does not explain other behavioral aspects such as validation or failure cases. There is no contradiction with 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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words and the key 'non-writing preview' concept is front-loaded. However, for a tool with 16 parameters and no other descriptive material, the one-sentence description is arguably too thin to be appropriately sized.

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 tool's complexity (16 parameters, 3 required, 0% schema parameter coverage), a single sentence describing the output is not enough for an agent to understand how to call it correctly. The output schema may cover return values, but the description leaves key context such as action values, changeset requirements, evidence inputs, and relationships to sibling preview/apply tools unexplained.

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 provides no explanation of the 16 parameters, including the three required ones (action, changeset_comment, changeset_source). The parameter names and types are present in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and a specific resource ('non-writing GeoJSON and element diff preview for a road edit'). The 'non-writing preview' phrasing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling apply_track_road_edit, so an agent can tell what this tool produces at a glance.

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 word 'preview' and 'non-writing' imply this is meant to be used before an apply operation, but the description never explicitly says 'use this before apply_track_road_edit' or states when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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