lc_preview_set_dr_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. The word 'Preview' suggests no side effects, but this is not explicitly stated. There is no mention of safety (e.g., destructive potential), permissions required, or what happens to the rule after preview.

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 extremely short (one sentence) but insufficiently informative. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity; here, critical details are omitted, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 high parameter count (10), required nested objects, and lack of output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to provide any context about the 'data' object structure, return values, or how to construct valid input.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. It does not explain what 'oid', 'data', 'etag', 'tags', etc., represent, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema titles which are minimal.

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') and the resource ('creating or updating a D&R rule'). It distinguishes from sibling preview tools that target other rule types (e.g., FP rules, integrity rules) by explicitly naming D&R rules.

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. There are many preview_set_* siblings but no mention of when preview is appropriate versus an actual set operation. The description does not clarify if this tool actually commits changes or only simulates.

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