Preview a request

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding behavioral context annotations cannot express: that authentication, provider-side validation, and quota checks are deliberately skipped, and that raw asset previews are redacted to byte count/hash. It stops short of saying what validation actually succeeds or whether output is a dry-run plan.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the exclusions/redaction caveats immediately after. Slightly dense phrasing ('exact local named request') costs a little clarity but 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 read-only tool whose annotations cover safety, the description is adequate but incomplete. With a 68-value operation enum and an opaque nested arguments object, and no output schema, the agent still lacks guidance on how arguments map to operations and what a successful preview returns outside the raw-asset case.

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%, so the description must carry param meaning and largely does not. It gestures at 'named request' suggesting operation + arguments, but explains nothing about how the nested 'arguments' object is shaped or keyed per operation, which is the critical semantics for this tool. The self-describing enum helps only with the operation half of the pair.

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 compound verb (validate and preview) applied to a specific resource (an exact local named request), and frames the scope as local-only. However, it never contrasts itself with the many execution siblings (apply_render_batch, run_workflow, install_publication) that an agent must choose between, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 negative scope (no authentication, provider validation, or quota estimate) implicitly tells the agent this is a pre-flight check rather than a real execution, which is useful. But there is no explicit instruction on when to reach for this versus get_operation_schema or the actual apply/run tools, and nothing about ordering or prerequisites.

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