dl_editor_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that validation covers artifact references and performs no execution, which reinforces (but largely echoes) the read-only annotation. It does not disclose what a failure response contains or how errors are surfaced.

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. It states the scope and the key constraint (no execution) in one pass.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations describing return values, the description should say what validation produces (pass/fail, error list, artifact-resolution errors). It omits this entirely, which is a meaningful gap for a validation tool whose value is in its error reporting.

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 schema only gives types (object/array) and a oneOf requirement. The description compensates partially by mapping 'one Editor draft' to draft and 'a mixed typed draft batch' to drafts, but 'mixed typed' and the structure of a draft object remain unexplained.

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 resource (one Editor draft or a mixed typed draft batch), which distinguishes it from the sibling dl_dataset_validate by scope. The 'without execution' qualifier further narrows intent. It stops short of naming the sibling alternative explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as dl_dataset_validate or dl_compile_recipe. The reader must infer that this is a pre-execution check from the phrase 'without execution' alone.

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