document_preview_remove

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is partly captured by metadata. The description adds useful context by saying the source content stays unchanged, but it does not explain what 'registered differences' means operationally or what the preview output will look like.

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 compact, free of filler, and front-loads the core behavior before the 'source remains in place' caveat. It earns its place, though its brevity is part of why the tool remains underspecified.

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?

With a required nested baseline object, a required id, a scope parameter, and 0% schema description coverage, a single terse sentence is not enough for an agent to construct a correct call. The existence of an output schema helps with return values, but the input semantics—especially what baseline must contain and how 'registered differences' are expressed—are essentially missing.

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 compensate for the unexplained parameters, but it never names id, baseline, or scope. The phrase 'registered differences' glances toward baseline's purpose, but id and scope remain completely unexplained and the baseline object shape is opaque.

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 identifies a specific action (移出/remove) on a specific resource (登记的差异/registered differences) and adds a key constraint that the source content remains in place. This clearly conveys a non-destructive preview intent and distinguishes it from apply-style tools, even though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the phrase 'source content remains in place' strongly implies this is the preview/non-destructive variant. The usage context is therefore implied rather than explicitly articulated.

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