validate_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds real behavioral semantics beyond them: NotValidated counts as valid, and validators_run counts enabled validators rather than those that actually applied — a subtle trap the schema and annotations do not reveal. The 'Read-only' sentence is somewhat redundant with readOnlyHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential verb and scope, and the returns block is dense but earns its place since no output schema exists. The parenthetical subsystem reference and the 'Read-only' clause are slightly over-packed into the opening sentence but nothing is wasted.

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 declared, the description fully compensates by enumerating every returned field and explaining the Valid/Invalid/NotValidated tri-state and the is_valid interpretation. Combined with a fully documented input parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100% and the single asset_path parameter is documented with a concrete example path. The description adds nothing further about parameter format or accepted path forms, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameters applies.

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 (run the enabled editor data validators), the exact subsystem entry point (UEditorValidatorSubsystem::IsAssetValid, Script use case), and the scope ('on one asset'), which cleanly separates it from the batch sibling validate_assets_in_path without needing to name 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to, or named alternative guidance. The agent must infer from 'on one asset' that validate_assets_in_path covers the bulk case, and there is no mention of prerequisites such as which validators must be enabled for a meaningful result.

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