nds_mutation_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states that the tool does not modify or publish anything, which is a critical safety guarantee. However, it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or what happens on validation failure, so it is not fully transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that is immediately understandable. Every word adds value: 'strict', 'workspace-contained', 'exact source ROM', and 'without modifying or publishing anything' all convey important nuances without fluff.

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?

Given that this is a validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and safety behavior, but it omits expected return values, success/failure cues, or potential side effects beyond 'no modification'. For an agent to effectively use the output, this is a notable gap.

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?

The input schema only provides parameter names (rom, manifest) with no descriptions, giving 0% schema coverage. The description subtly defines 'rom' as the exact source ROM and 'manifest' as the mutation manifest, but it does not explain their format, constraints, or how 'strict' validation works. It partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but not fully.

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 clearly states the action ('Validate') and the specific resource ('strict workspace-contained NDS mutation manifest against the exact source ROM'). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like nds_mutation_verify by emphasizing the strict containment and exactness, and explicitly notes that nothing is modified or published.

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 dry-run validation step before building or publishing, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of nds_mutation_verify or nds_mutation_build. The 'without modifying or publishing anything' hint provides some context, but there is no direct guidance on choosing this over alternatives.

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