yaaif_agent_spec_legacy_revision_backfill_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the two most important behaviors: the tool is read-only and it never runs automatically. It does not describe what the preview returns or whether any temporary state is created, but the core safety behavior is transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical safety qualifier is in the second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of guidance. It omits what the preview output will contain, what normalization means in this context, and how it relates to the sibling apply tool. For an agent to call this correctly and interpret the result, more context is needed.

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 schema provides only `spec_id` as a required string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what `spec_id` refers to, where to find it, or what values are valid. The parameter is somewhat self-explanatory from its name, but the description adds no real semantic value.

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 names a specific action ('Preview') and a specific object ('legacy release metadata normalization'), so an agent can tell it is a preview operation rather than an apply operation. The phrase 'legacy release metadata normalization' is jargon and not fully explained, which prevents a 5.

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 statement 'This is read-only and never runs automatically for any tenant' gives useful safety context and implies the agent must invoke it explicitly. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this preview instead of the sibling `yaaif_agent_spec_legacy_revision_backfill_apply` or any other alternative.

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