lc_preview_delete_ai_skill

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

No annotations are provided, and the description simply says 'Preview deleting', which hints at a non-destructive dry-run but does not explicitly state that no changes occur. It fails to disclose operational details like permissions required, idempotency, or what the preview returns (no output schema). The behavior is largely implicit from the tool name.

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 sentence, which is concise but too minimal. It lacks structure and additional details that could be included without making it verbose. It is front-loaded with the verb but sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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?

Given the many sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what the preview returns, how it differs from similar preview operations, or what the user should expect. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly without relying on external knowledge.

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%, and the description adds nothing about the parameters. While 'oid' and 'name' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'token_ttl_seconds' is not explained at all. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter purpose ambiguous.

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 'Preview deleting an AI skill Hive record' clearly specifies the action (preview deletion) and the target resource (AI skill Hive record). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lc_preview_delete_ai_agent and lc_preview_set_ai_skill by pointing to a different resource and operation. However, it does not explain what a 'Hive record' is, slightly reducing clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other preview delete tools (e.g., lc_preview_delete_hive_record) or non-preview alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the OID from a prior list/get operation, or that this is a dry-run before actual deletion. The agent receives no contextual cues for proper selection.

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