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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: validation does not persist changes and returns an asynchronous job. This is valuable for a tool with readOnlyHint=false and no output schema, though job polling details are omitted.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key differentiator front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, and the 'without saving' constraint is prominent.

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?

For a complex schema with four parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained. It mentions returning a job but gives no indication of how to use the result or what wait_seconds does.

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 only loosely maps to 'routes' and validation targets. It does not explain the required build_id and workspace parameters, nor the optional wait_seconds, which is especially costly given the nested route schema.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and lists what is validated (source/types/routes/secrets), plus the key differentiator that nothing is saved. It clearly contrasts with builds_save, though it could be more explicit about what a 'build' is.

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?

'Without saving' implies this is a pre-save validation step, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus builds_save, builds_sync, or builds_get, nor does it mention prerequisites.

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