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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it accepts single-line or fenced input and explicitly states it does not read files, which prevents the agent from mistakenly supplying a file path.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the purpose, then give usage triggers, then input handling. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter validator with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool validates, when to call it, what input format is expected, and how the argument should be passed.

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% and the schema already describes 'toml' as 'Contents of wavedash.toml.' The description adds crucial disambiguation by instructing to pass the config text as the toml argument and clarifying it does not read files, which goes beyond the schema's phrasing.

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 ('Validate') and resource ('wavedash.toml contents') and enumerates concrete issue categories: missing game_id/upload_dir, entrypoint repeating upload_dir, absolute paths, engine sections. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling doc/planning tools.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call this whenever the user shares wavedash.toml text or asks to check their Wavedash config, even if the problem looks obvious.' It does not discuss exclusions or alternatives, but none of the sibling tools perform validation, so the context is clear.

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