usage_preview

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

Annotation readOnlyHint true already marks read-only; the description adds that the plan is saved via document_apply after previewing, implying usage_preview itself does not persist. It does not contradict annotations, and the workflow note is behavioral context beyond the boolean hint.

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?

Single sentence with no filler and the most important constraint (settings schema source) is front-loaded. It is concise, though somewhat under-specified; still efficient.

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?

The output schema and readOnly annotation lower the burden, and referencing usage_describe/document_apply gives workflow context. But it lacks parameter semantics for most fields and no explicit guidance for choosing this tool over sibling preview tools, leaving it only partially 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it only explains settings by pointing to usage_describe's settingsSchema and ignores plugin, scope, and baseline. It provides one useful link, but three of four parameters remain semantically 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 says settings must comply with usage_describe's settingsSchema and that after previewing a plan should be saved via document_apply, but it never directly states what usage_preview returns or what action it performs. The verb 'preview' is implied by the name and workflow, not by a clear definition.

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?

It embeds a workflow: settings schema comes from usage_describe and the preview result is ultimately persisted through document_apply, so an agent can infer use before applying. It does not state when not to use usage_preview or how it compares with other preview/apply siblings, leaving selection partly to inference.

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