lc_preview_set_yara_rule

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose what 'preview' entails (e.g., syntax validation, simulated result, or required permissions). The behavioral impact and return value are unclear.

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. However, it is too terse and omits critical details, reducing its effectiveness. While brevity is valued, it comes at the cost of 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 (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'preview' returns, how parameters relate, or how this tool fits among the many sibling preview tools. The description is far from complete.

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 adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters (oid, name, sources, etc.). For example, 'sources' is not explained (URLs? file paths?). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Preview creating or updating a YARA scanning rule' clearly states the tool's action: previewing a create or update operation on a YARA rule. It distinguishes from siblings like lc_preview_delete_yara_rule and lc_preview_set_yara_source by focusing on the rule itself.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., lc_preview_set_yara_source, lc_preview_delete_yara_rule). There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context that helps differentiate from the many sibling preview tools.

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