Validate a DrawArch File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by listing the specific validation categories and scoping to the output directory, which is not present in the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes only essential information. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter validation tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description fully captures the tool's scope and behavior. It specifies what the tool validates and where, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by indicating that the file is a .drawio file and located in the configured output directory, giving context to the fileName parameter. The schema provides the pattern, and the description clarifies the file's expected location and scope.

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 uses the specific verb 'Validate' with the resource '.drawio file inside the configured output directory' and enumerates the exact checks (structural errors, dangling references, duplicate IDs, unsafe images). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling validation tools such as validate_reference_drawio.

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 provides clear context by specifying the target location (configured output directory) and the types of issues it checks. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the similar sibling validate_reference_drawio, so it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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