contentrain_validate

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: lists detectable issues, warns against manually editing .contentrain/ files, and describes auto-fix behavior. No contradiction with 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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Most aspects are covered: parameters, behavior, warnings. No output schema, so return format is not described, but the tool's validation role is clear. Minor gap: no mention of output structure.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context for 'fix' parameter (auto-fixes structural issues) but not for 'model'. Meets baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specifies the action 'validate' against 'project content' and lists specific issues detected (required field violations, type mismatches, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like contentrain_scan or contentrain_doctor.

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 implies use for validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., contentrain_scan, contentrain_doctor). It provides a behavioral note about fix:true but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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