exposure_slice

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

The description says 'preset: override standing default', which implies a state-changing operation, yet annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction – the tool appears to modify a default even though it is marked read-only. The description provides no further behavioral context (e.g., what exactly is resolved, what 'apply' does, side effects) beyond the annotations, and the contradiction makes the behavior unreliable.

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 short but not concise in a useful way – it uses cryptic fragments ('AS-8', 'checkbox IDs') without expository context. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (required params), and it lacks a clear structure that would help an agent parse the tool's purpose and parameters quickly.

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 with 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and cryptic jargon, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what an exposure preset is, what 'seed destination' means, what the tool returns, or how to use the required `app_id` and `agent_id`. The annotations cover safety but not usage context. An agent would have to guess or introspect other tools to understand this one.

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 meaning for all parameters. It briefly explains `destination` (enumerates values), `preset` ('override standing default'), and `fields` ('custom dotted paths (checkbox IDs)'), but it completely omits `app_id` and `agent_id`, which are required. The explanations are terse and do not give full semantics (e.g., what values for `preset` are allowed, how `fields` are formatted, or the purpose of the IDs).

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 definition states a verb ('Resolve and apply') and a resource ('exposure preset for a seed destination'), but the resource is opaque jargon ('AS-8', 'seed destination') with no definition of what an exposure preset is or what 'resolve and apply' means operationally. It does not distinguish itself from any of the numerous sibling tools, and the purpose remains ambiguous for an agent encountering it fresh.

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 call this tool versus any alternative. The description lists possible values for `destination` but gives no context about when a caller would want this tool, what prerequisites exist, or what conditions favor it over other exposure-related tools such as exposure_config_get or agent_seed_mirror. No sibling is referenced.

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