lc_preview_set_feedback_channels

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. It uses 'Preview' which implies non-destructive behavior, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, what side effects occur, or what permissions are needed. This leaves ambiguity about whether the tool modifies state.

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 5-word sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and fails to provide essential details. It sacrifices clarity 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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and its role in a likely preview-then-confirm workflow, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain output, workflow integration, or how to interpret the preview result.

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 should explain parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (oid, etag, channels, token_ttl_seconds) or their purpose. The channels parameter is an array of objects with additionalProperties, requiring guidance on expected structure.

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 states 'Preview replacing ext-feedback channel configuration.' It identifies the resource (ext-feedback channels) and implies a preview action, but does not clearly define what 'preview' means in this context (e.g., validation, simulation, dry run). It distinguishes from list tools but is vague compared to similar sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_preview_set_feedback_channels (siblings) or lc_confirm_action. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflow steps, or exclusions.

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