Lore has 22 well-named tools with consistent verb_noun patterns (list_, get_, create_, update_, delete_, submit_). All tools have descriptions (avg ~100 chars, within baseline 34-392). Input schemas are present and typed for all tools. However, parameter descriptions are sparse or generic in many cases (e.g., 'Rule content with productDescription, technicalDescription, etc.' lacks specificity). Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure. Error handling is absent from visible code. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). Composition is sound: tools chain logically (e.g., list_rules → get_rule → submit_feedback). Security: login/password exposed as parameters (anti-pattern); should use server-side auth. Overall: solid naming and basic schemas, but missing output documentation, parameter detail, and error guidance.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Example: list_rules should return {rules: [{id, title, status, flow, kind, confidence, createdAt}], total, nextCursor}. This enables LLMs to plan downstream calls.
• Replace login(email, password) with server-side JWT injection. Store credentials in environment or vault, not as tool parameters. Prevents secrets from leaking into logs.
• Expand parameter descriptions for complex objects. For submit_rule's 'content' param, enumerate: {productDescription: string, technicalDescription: string, ...}. Add format constraints (e.g., 'max 5000 chars').
• Add error handling guidance to write tools (submit_rule, submit_feedback, delete_entity). Document: 'Returns 409 if rule is locked. Returns 403 if user lacks approval role. Retry with exponential backoff on 5xx.'
• Add tool annotations: mark list_* and get_* with readOnlyHint=true; mark delete_entity with destructiveHint=true; mark submit_feedback with idempotentHint=true (same feedback twice is safe).