lc_preview_update_extension

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

Without annotations, the description implies non-destructive behavior ('preview'), but it doesn't confirm side effects, permission requirements, or output characteristics. The behavioral impact is 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?

At four words, the description is concise but under-specifies. It front-loads the operation type, but omits critical details, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 three parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the preview process, input requirements, or expected output, resulting in poor contextual completeness.

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%, and the description adds no parameter meaning. extension_name, token_ttl_seconds, and extension_definition are undefined. The description fails to clarify their roles, leaving agents without guidance.

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 updating an extension definition. This distinguishes it from sibling preview tools like lc_preview_create_extension and lc_preview_delete_extension by specifying the operation type. However, it lacks detail on what 'preview' entails (e.g., validation, dry-run).

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, the relationship to lc_get_extension, or whether direct update exists. The description provides no context for appropriate usage.

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