validate_arc_diagram_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool performs validation and does not write files, which is a meaningful side-effect guarantee. It does not describe error behavior or success/failure signaling, but the primary behavioral trait—no file writes—is explicit.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the scope of validation, and the key side-effect constraint 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?

The input schema is large and nested, and there is no output schema, so the description should explain what the validation call returns on success or failure. It does not say whether the tool returns a list of errors, a boolean, or throws an exception, leaving the agent without enough information to interpret the tool's outcome.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat their meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Validate' and names the exact resources being validated: diagram identities, references, dialect constraints, steps, and control legends. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from create_arc_diagram_project by noting it does not write files, and its validation role separates it from the list/get sibling tools.

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 phrase 'without writing files' hints that this is a dry-run or pre-flight alternative to create_arc_diagram_project, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the list/get siblings. The usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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