validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the tool returns errors and warnings, that it is a non-writing check, and that its logic is duplicated inside every mutation's write gate. It does not describe the shape or severity of the errors/warnings or whether the check has side effects on the store, leaving a modest gap.

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 core content is well front-loaded, but the instruction 'use it only after the store was edited outside these tools' appears twice (opening and closing), wasting space, and the parenthetical '(check the data)' is redundant with the main sentence.

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, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and roughly what it returns (errors and warnings). The remaining gap is the meaning/format of 'key' and the exact return structure, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'key' parameter, so the description must compensate. It only obliquely implies that key identifies the project ('a project's stored data') without stating format, scope, or whether it accepts an ID versus a slug.

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+resource: checks a project's stored data against the FronyBoard schema and rules, returning errors and warnings. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling mutation tools by explaining that every mutation already runs this same gate. The only gap is that it never ties the 'key' parameter to a project explicitly, though 'a project's stored data' implies it.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('only after the store was edited outside these tools') and an explicit when-not ('rarely needed on its own'), naming the alternative behavior (mutations run the same gate and refuse to write). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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