preview_replace_submission_files

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

With `readOnlyHint=true` and `destructiveHint=false` already in annotations, the description reinforces safety by stating 'no sube nada'. It adds the nuance that the tool validates and previews, and specifies 'complete replacement,' which is more specific than the annotation alone. No contradiction exists, and the description adds semantic context about the tool's non-mutating behavior.

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 a single, clear Spanish sentence that front-loads the primary action (validate and preview) and immediately clarifies a key limitation (no upload). It is appropriately sized with zero redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

While the tool's purpose is clear, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the preview returns (e.g., validation errors, a simulated file list, or success indicators). It also lacks any guidance on how this tool fits into the broader workflow (e.g., whether to call it before `replace_submission_files`). Given the tool's complexity (3 params) and the absence of parameter descriptions, the description is not fully complete, though the core intent is conveyed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the three parameters (`assignment_id`, `file_paths`, `course_module_id`), nor does it elaborate on what they mean or how they relate to the preview. The description's generic phrase 'replacement of files' loosely maps to `file_paths`, but it adds no meaningful parameter semantics. Given the low schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it validates and previews the complete replacement of files, and explicitly states it does not upload anything. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool `replace_submission_files` and other preview variants (e.g., `preview_delete_submission_files`), which have different resources. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 clarifies that this tool does not perform the actual upload, which is a key usage distinction from `replace_submission_files`. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use before replacing files'), nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. The 'no uploads' clause implies its role as a dry-run, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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