Validate a Reference Draw.io Artifact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, non-destructive nature is known. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is validated (structure, IDs, references, embedded-image safety), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and lists the validation dimensions efficiently.

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 annotations covering side effects and an output schema presumably defining returns, the description sufficiently conveys the core function and validation targets. It does not clarify its differentiation from validate_drawio, but that is more a usage-guideline gap than a completeness 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 sole parameter, fileName, has no schema description (0% coverage) and is not mentioned in the tool description. The schema pattern gives format constraints, but the description adds no semantic explanation of what fileName represents or how it relates to the validation operation, leaving a gap.

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 a specific action (Validate) applied to a specific resource (a generated reference recreation) and enumerates the validation focus (native Draw.io structure, IDs, references, and embedded-image safety). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_drawio by targeting reference recreations specifically.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_drawio or compare_reference_recreation. It lacks workflow context, prerequisites, or any explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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