dl_dataset_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and "without mutation" largely restates that, so little new behavioral value is added there. The description does add useful scope information (what is actually validated), but no error/warning semantics or auth requirements are disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope come first. It is efficient, though it lacks the structural separation (e.g., a usage line) that would make it more scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a validation result looks like (pass/fail, error list) and how the two mutually optional inputs behave. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the outcome of a call.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not. It never explains the anyOf contract (supply either dataset_id or fields), when to use one versus the other, or the per-field structure (guid, formula, data_type, aggregation) that the validator consumes.

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 (validate) and enumerates the validated surface: field GUIDs, calculation levels, and cross-field formula restrictions. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the nearby dl_editor_validate sibling, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

"Without mutation" implies a safe pre-flight check, so the intended usage (dry-run validation before committing changes) is inferable. However, no alternative tools are named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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