lc_preview_set_org_note

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'preview creating or updating' but does not clarify that this is a dry run, that no actual changes occur, or what the output looks like. Side effects, permissions, and return format are omitted.

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 single sentence is concise at 12 words, but it is under-specified and lacks detail. Every word is necessary, but more information is needed about the tool's behavior and parameters.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool, such as what the preview returns or what constraints exist on parameters.

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 explains none of the 10 parameters. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. Required parameters like 'oid', 'name', and 'data' are not explained.

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 creating or updating an organization-note Hive record,' which specifies the verb ('preview creating/updating') and resource ('organization-note Hive record'). It is clear and consistent with sibling 'preview_set_*' tools, but could be more explicit about what 'preview' entails.

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 like lc_set_org_note or lc_get_org_note. There are many sibling 'preview_set_*' tools, and the description offers no context for selection.

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