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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that validation uses the real interpreter, checks embedded commands against the official index, validates the /connect envelope shape, and explains the important result nuance that ok:true alone does not guarantee valid syntax. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers exclusions and critical result semantics without fluff. Every sentence adds value, and the structure leads from what the tool does to when not to use it to the key caveat.

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 validation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the three validation axes, the alternative tool, the command-detection rule, and the meaning of syntaxChecked, leaving an agent well-equipped to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the code parameter by clarifying that the script runs outside the game and that only strings starting with / are interpreted as commands, which helps an agent understand what content is expected.

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 names a specific verb (validates), a clear resource (Python automation script), and a precise scope (runs outside the game, across three named axes). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from validate_script, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule: behavior pack scripts should go to validate_script instead, because Python does not run inside a pack. It also explains why the embedded command check matters and clarifies that only strings starting with / are treated as commands, giving practical selection and invocation guidance.

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