lc_preview_remove_case_artifact

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

The description indicates it is a 'preview' (not the actual removal), but it does not disclose what the preview returns, whether it is read-only, required permissions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the obvious. With no annotations, this 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 short sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded but arguably too concise, sacrificing completeness 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 tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools performing similar previews, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the return value, how parameters relate, or when to use this over alternatives.

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 description adds no information about the four parameters (oid, artifact_id, case_number, token_ttl_seconds). With 0% schema coverage, the agent must infer semantics solely from parameter names, which may be ambiguous (e.g., 'oid').

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 removing'), the resource ('forensic artifact reference'), and the context ('from a case'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like lc_preview_remove_case_detection or lc_preview_remove_case_tags by specifying 'artifact reference'.

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 preview tool versus other actions, such as the actual removal or alternative previews. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or conditions for invocation.

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