lc_preview_set_hive_record_enabled

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

The description notes that this is a 'preview' operation and that it preserves existing metadata, which gives some behavioral insight. However, there are no annotations to supplement this, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose whether this tool is read-only, what permissions are required, or what happens after the preview (e.g., does it return a change set?).

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be improved by adding structure such as separate sections for behavior or parameter hints, but the brevity is not a significant flaw.

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 of 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, side effects, or prerequisites. It provides only the most basic action without any context that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no parameter-level information. It mentions 'enabled metadata' but does not explain how the 'enabled' boolean parameter works, nor does it clarify the roles of 'oid', 'hive_name', 'key', 'partition_key', or 'token_ttl_seconds'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 that this tool previews setting a Hive record's enabled metadata while preserving existing metadata. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'lc_preview_set_hive_record', the name and description together imply the specific focus on the 'enabled' field, making the purpose relatively clear.

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 the many similar sibling tools (e.g., lc_preview_set_hive_record, lc_set_hive_record_enabled). The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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