lc_preview_feedback_question

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It says 'Preview sending' which implies no actual send occurs, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is non-destructive, state side effects, or mention required permissions.

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 too short to provide necessary context. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness, leaving critical information missing.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations or parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide enough information for correct tool selection and invocation.

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, and the description provides no explanation of any parameters. The agent is left to guess the meaning of fields like 'oid', 'channel', 'question', and 'feedback_destination'.

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 verb 'Preview' and the resource 'external free-form question' via 'ext-feedback'. It differentiates from sibling tools like lc_preview_feedback_acknowledgement and lc_preview_feedback_simple_approval by specifying the type of feedback.

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. It does not mention the context for previewing or any prerequisites like needing a feedback channel setup.

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