lc_preview_set_lookup

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

The tool name includes 'preview', which implies a dry-run with no side effects, and the description reiterates this. However, without annotations, the description should explicitly state that no actual creation or update occurs. No information is given about rate limits, authentication, or what happens if validation fails.

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 structure. It is front-loaded with the core action but omits context that would help an agent navigate the complex parameter set. The sentence earns its place by stating purpose, but the tool's complexity warrants more detail.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the preview returns (e.g., validation errors, preview of changes), how required parameters relate to existing lookups, or that only one data format should be specified at a time.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any parameter meanings. For instance, it does not clarify that 'oid' likely identifies the lookup, 'name' its display name, or that yaml_content, newline_content, and lookup_data are alternative formats for the lookup data. The presence of token_ttl_seconds is also unaddressed.

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 tool previews creating or updating a lookup Hive record from a supported data format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `lc_preview_set_hive_record` by specifying 'lookup', and from `lc_preview_set_lookup_enabled` by focusing on the record itself. However, it does not define what constitutes a supported data format.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like `lc_set_lookup` or other preview_set tools, nor does it explain the relationship between the data format parameters (yaml_content, newline_content, lookup_data).

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