Confirm an exact preview after headless Agent review

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive; the description adds useful context by noting this is a headless/model-visible confirmation and explicitly warning but it cannot prove UI visibility. There is no contradiction: the readOnlyHint is consistent with 'confirmation' acting as a non-mutating signal rather than a state-changing operation.

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 title states the exact action and the description front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then adds preconditions and the caveat in the second sentence. There is no redundant repetition of annotation or schema information.

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 one-argument headless confirmation tool, the description covers the important workflow and limitation, but it does not describe what happens after the confirmation is sent, whether the call returns a result, or how the challenge should be selected beyond implication. It is adequate but has meaningful gaps.

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?

The single parameter previewChallenge has no schema description and the tool description does not explicitly explain how to obtain or form it. The references to the previous headless preview tool imply the challenge comes from that call, which provides some context, but the description still leaves too much up to inference.

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 first sentence makes it clear that this tool confirms a preview produced by figure_library_preview_exact_headless, and the title adds that it is an exact assessment confirmation. It is not a tautology, but it could be more explicit about what the confirmation accomplishes or persists.

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 gives strong preconditions: use only after a user selection, explicit delegation, or an App updateModelContext handoff when serverTools is unavailable. The caveat that this call cannot prove UI visibility also helps the agent know it should not treat this as a reliable UI-visible confirmation, though it does not explicitly name the non-headless alternative tool.

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