preview_store

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

Annotations only say it is not read-only and not destructive; the description goes further by naming the output location (.steam-mcp/exports/), confirming it writes a file, and honestly flagging that the first-screen mark is an estimate because Steam's cut-off height is undocumented. That uncertainty disclosure is valuable context not available in structured fields.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the action and destination come first, followed by the caveat. No wasted sentences, though the parenthetical caveat slightly crowds the single sentence.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the purpose/output path are covered. However, for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves parameter meaning largely unexplained, so it is only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0% for 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only indirectly gestures at about_draft/short_draft ('the given drafts') and fold_px ('estimated end of the first screen'), without naming any parameter or explaining units, defaults, or what 'path' refers to.

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: 'Write an HTML preview of the store text' plus the output directory. It is clearly distinct from read-only inspection tools, though it does not explicitly name which sibling (e.g. export_package or validate) it replaces.

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 offers the choice of 'current values, or the given drafts' but gives no guidance on when to run this versus sibling tools like validate, export_package, or apply. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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