lc_preview_subscribe_extension

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

No annotations are provided. The description uses 'Preview' to imply a non-destructive operation but does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it mention prerequisites, return value, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 description is brief but at the expense of clarity. It under-specifies the tool, omitting essential details that could be added in a few more sentences.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with no descriptions, the tool definition is severely incomplete. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke or interpret results.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'oid', 'extension_name', or 'token_ttl_seconds' mean, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them.

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 subscribing an org to an extension' is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name and lacks specificity about what 'preview' entails (e.g., validation, cost estimation, simulation). It does not distinguish itself from a potential actual subscribe tool if one existed.

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_preview_unsubscribe_extension or lc_list_extension_subscriptions. The description gives no context for decision-making.

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