digikey_preview_mylist_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the preview is 'expiring' and 'signed', implying a time-limited token returned to the caller. It still omits what happens on invalid SKUs and how list_id vs list_name interact.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and no filler; the key non-mutating guarantee is stated up front. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the schema's complexity.

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 tool taking a nested array of line items with target price, attrition, packaging and reference fields at 0% schema coverage, one sentence is not enough. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input contract is largely unaddressed.

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% across 4 top-level params and a 9-field nested RequestedLine object. The description only hints that part numbers must be 'exact' SKUs and says nothing about lines, list_id/list_name selection, or assembly_count, leaving the nested pricing/attrition fields entirely undocumented.

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 ('Validate exact SKUs', 'return an expiring, signed preview') and contrasts itself with the write path via 'without changing DigiKey'. It is distinguishable from apply_mylist_changes, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling digikey_validate_mylist.

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 phrase 'without changing DigiKey' and 'preview' imply this is a dry-run step before apply_mylist_changes, so the usage context is inferable. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance versus validate_mylist or apply_mylist_changes.

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