lc_preview_update_case_entity

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to state whether the preview is read-only, requires specific permissions, or returns validation results. The phrase 'preview updating' is ambiguous without explaining side effects.

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?

Extremely concise at 7 words, front-loaded. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it borderline under-specified rather than efficient.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what the preview returns, how to use the output, or the meaning of key fields like oid. An agent would lack essential context for correct usage.

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%, but the description only mentions 'note or verdict', ignoring required parameters like oid, case_number, and entity_id, as well as token_ttl_seconds. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, leaving agents to infer parameter roles.

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?

Description clearly states 'Preview updating a case entity note or verdict,' indicating the verb, resource, and aspects. Distinguishes from siblings like lc_preview_add_case_entity and lc_preview_remove_case_entity. However, it could be more explicit that 'preview' implies a dry run without committing changes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or differentiate from similar preview tools for adding or removing case entities.

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