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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, but the description still adds substance: it enumerates what the dry run reports (unknown/misspelled properties, type mismatches), states that it returns the normalized JSON (compensating for the absent output schema), and explains the silent-acceptance failure mode that motivates the tool.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the operative information: the action and its read-only nature come first, then the conditional guidance. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the return value (normalized JSON plus reported problems), the safety profile, and the conditions for use. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter validation tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (payload as a JSON string, actionType as a C# class name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or encoding detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: dry-run/validate a scenario node payload against its config class before writing. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_scenario_node_schema by naming it as a companion rather than a duplicate.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('BEFORE writing it') and gives a precise triage rule: prioritize node types whose schema card reports validation=NONE, because the server accepts broken payloads silently there. The alternative behavior (proceeding to write without checking) is implicitly but clearly framed as the mistake to avoid.

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