lc_preview_set_integrity_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Preview' implying no actual creation/update, but does not disclose what the preview returns, side effects, or that the result is likely a token for 'lc_confirm_action'. Minimal behavioral information beyond the verb.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. While it front-loads the purpose, it could benefit from a brief note on parameter usage or output. Adequate for a preview tool, but borderline under-specified.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the preview result (likely a token), how to use it (via lc_confirm_action), or any constraints. Users would need external knowledge to effectively use this tool.

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%. The description adds no explanation for the 6 parameters (e.g., oid, name, patterns, tags, platforms, token_ttl_seconds). Users must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for many parameters.

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 it previews creating or updating an integrity monitoring rule, with specific verb 'Preview' and resource 'integrity monitoring rule'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lc_set_integrity_rule' (actual mutation) and 'lc_get_integrity_rule' (retrieval).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lc_set_integrity_rule' or 'lc_confirm_action'. The description does not explain that previewing is for validation before committing, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for use.

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