lc_preview_update_case_note_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not explain that 'preview' implies a non-destructive simulation, which is critical for an agent. No mention of side effects, permissions, or return behavior.

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 extremely brief (one sentence), but brevity here sacrifices necessary detail. It is not concise in a helpful way; it is under-specified. The sentence could be expanded to include key behavioral details without being verbose.

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 absence of any output schema, parameter descriptions, and annotations, and the presence of five parameters including a token_ttl_seconds field, the description is woefully incomplete. The agent lacks essential context to use the tool correctly.

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 provides no parameter explanations. The description adds no information about any of the five parameters (oid, case_number, event_id, is_public, token_ttl_seconds). The agent cannot infer what these mean or how to use 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 states it previews changing a case note's public visibility, which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from other preview tools like 'preview_add_case_note' or 'preview_update_case' by focusing on visibility. However, it doesn't clarify what 'preview' means (e.g., dry-run vs. actual change), which limits clarity slightly.

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. Among many similar preview tools, there is no distinction or context provided. The agent has no help in deciding between this and, say, 'lc_preview_update_case' or 'lc_preview_add_case_note'.

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