preview_remote_branch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions issuing a 'token bound to the exact source commit,' which is a meaningful side effect, but it doesn't explain what the token is for, whether this is destructive/mutating, whether it requires permissions, or what impact this token issuance has. The output schema exists, mitigating some ambiguity, but the behavioral profile is largely opaque.

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 one short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately brief for what it conveys, though the brevity trades off against the completeness gaps noted in other dimensions. Minimal waste, but under-specification.

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?

This tool has 6 parameters (2 required), an output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. Despite having an output schema, the description fails to address the token's purpose, the meaning of required and optional parameters, or how this differs from several sibling preview tools. For a tool with this much surface area and ambiguity relative to siblings, the description is incomplete.

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%, meaning the description must clarify the 6 parameters. It defines none of them. 'description' is required but its purpose (likely the PR/preview description) is not explained; 'basecamp_url', 'environment', and 'source_branch' are entirely undefined. The description only hints at 'branch' and 'source commit' but does not map them to specific parameters.

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 'Preview a branch and issue a token bound to the exact source commit.' It identifies the primary action (preview a branch) and secondary effect (issuing a token). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish how this differs from siblings like preview_local_commit or preview_pull_request, which likely also produce previews. The verb is reasonably specific but the resource/scope differentiator is weak.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many preview-related siblings (preview_branch_name, preview_local_commit, preview_pull_request, preview_pull_request_comment). It does not mention prerequisites such as needing an existing remote branch, or when owner/environment/basecamp_url would be needed. 'Remote' in the name hints at remote branches, but this is not stated as a usage condition.

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