lc_preview_delete_integrity_rule

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

The description implies this is a preview (dry-run) via the word 'Preview', hinting it is non-destructive. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state safety, required permissions, or side effects. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action. It wastes no words, but some additional detail could be added without being verbose.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the preview returns (e.g., confirmation token). It also leaves token_ttl_seconds unexplained. For a preview action, this is incomplete.

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 compensate. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (oid, name, token_ttl_seconds) beyond their names. token_ttl_seconds is particularly unclear. This is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 action (preview deleting) and the resource (integrity monitoring rule). It distinguishes from siblings like lc_preview_set_integrity_rule (which modifies) and lc_get_integrity_rule (reads). However, it could be more explicit about the preview nature.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to preview before actual deletion, or how it differs from other preview_delete_* tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or next steps.

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