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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond annotations by specifying what the tool returns ('every rejection, dangling-edge warning, and unscored status') and confirming it does not publish. This enriches the behavioral context without contradiction.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first, followed by the output specifics. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining inputs and outputs. It describes the nature of the return (rejections, warnings, unscored statuses) but does not specify the format of nodes/edges or the role of sessionId. For a validation tool, an agent might infer enough, but the description leaves gaps in parameter usage and error semantics.

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 does not elaborate on any of the four parameters. It only mentions nodes and edges implicitly via the return content, but provides no meaning for projectId, sessionId, or the structure of the arrays. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema semantics.

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 a specific verb ('dry-run') and resource ('graph acceptance'), and clarifies the tool's non-publishing nature. It distinguishes itself from publish_project_graph by explicitly noting it does not publish a version, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies this is a pre-publish validation step ('without publishing a version'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus publish_project_graph, patch_project_graph, or other graph-related tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage context inferential.

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