lc_preview_set_playbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Preview creating or updating' but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects (e.g., it does not commit changes), nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. The term 'preview' implies a dry-run, but this is not confirmed.

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 too brief to convey necessary information. It lacks structure and front-loads the key action, but the minimalism sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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 (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. An AI agent would have insufficient context to understand what data to provide or what the preview returns. Sibling tools like lc_preview_set_hive_record or lc_set_playbook might offer more clues, but the description itself fails to provide adequate completeness.

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%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for any of the 10 parameters (oid, name, data, etag, tags, expiry, comment, enabled, ui_actions, token_ttl_seconds). The description adds no explanation of what these parameters mean, how to use them, or their expected formats. This is a critical gap.

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 verb 'Preview' and the resource 'creating or updating a playbook Hive record,' which aligns with the tool's name and distinguishes it from other playbook tools like lc_get_playbook or lc_preview_set_playbook_enabled. However, it does not elaborate on the exact semantics of 'preview' (e.g., validation, simulated change, return expected result without commit), which could cause ambiguity.

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 such as lc_set_playbook (which presumably actually creates/updates) or other preview tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, 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.