lc_preview_update_case

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'No write is sent until confirmation', clearly indicating the non-destructive, preview-only behavior. However, it does not disclose the response format (e.g., return token) or authentication requirements. The lack of annotations is partially compensated by this explicit statement.

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, clear sentence: 'Preview updating a case. No write is sent until confirmation.' It is front-loaded with purpose and critical behavioral note. No extraneous information; every word earns its place.

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?

The description provides core preview semantics but lacks guidance on the confirmation step (e.g., which tool to use to commit). With no output schema, agents are left to infer the return value. For a complex tool with many parameters, the description is adequate but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters, the tool description adds no explanation of parameter meaning (e.g., what 'oid' or 'case_number' represent). The phrase 'Preview updating a case' implies parameters are update fields, but the agent must infer semantics from names alone. Minimal value added beyond the schema titles.

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 specifies 'Preview updating a case', which clearly states the verb (preview) and resource (case update). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lc_get_case (read-only) and lc_preview_create_case (different operation). The behavior is uniquely identified among many preview tools.

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 implies usage for testing updates before committing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_get_case or lc_confirm_action. No exclusions or usage context beyond the preview nature is provided.

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