contentrain_validate

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: what auto-fix does (canonical sort, orphan meta, etc.), a warning not to manually edit .contentrain/ files, and that title_field backfills are reported with the choosing rule. 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?

Compact and well-structured. Three sentences, all information-bearing, front-loaded with purpose, then fix behavior, then safety warning. No redundant 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?

Covers tool purpose, fix options, and a safety warning. However, it doesn't describe the output format of validation results (e.g., report structure, exit codes), which may be relevant for agents interpreting results. Minor gap, otherwise complete.

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%, so the schema already explains both 'fix' and 'model' parameters. The description restates the fix behavior but doesn't add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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?

Clearly states it validates project content against model schemas and lists specific violation types (required fields, type mismatches, etc.). The verb+resource is specific, but it doesn't differentiate 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contentrain_apply or contentrain_doctor. The description implies a validation use case but doesn't provide context for selection or exclusion.

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