lc_preview_delete_org_note

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

The term 'preview' implies a dry-run operation, but the description does not disclose what happens during the preview, such as whether it returns an estimated impact, requires confirmation, or has any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is insufficient.

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 lacks necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of informativeness; a longer description with key points would be more effective.

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 complexity (many sibling preview tools, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the preview behavior, return value, or how it fits with related tools like lc_get_org_note or lc_set_org_note.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or role of 'oid', 'name', or 'token_ttl_seconds'. The agent cannot infer what values to provide or why token_ttl_seconds is needed, leaving a critical 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 action ('Preview deleting') and the resource ('organization-note Hive record'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It is specific enough to differentiate from other tools that delete different resources, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling preview tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lc_preview_delete_hive_record or lc_preview_delete_org. There is no context about prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or when not to use it.

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