validate_operations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a validation-only tool that doesn't execute changes, returns compiled batchUpdate requests and validation status, and catches specific error types (address resolution errors, ambiguous headings, etc.). It could improve by mentioning rate limits or auth needs, but covers core behavior adequately.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the second explains returns and use cases, the third details error types, and the fourth provides explicit usage guidance. The Args section efficiently clarifies parameters without redundancy.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining inputs and behavior. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't fully describe the return format (e.g., structure of validation status) or potential error responses, which would be helpful despite no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining both parameters: 'document_id' is clarified as 'The Google Docs document ID' and 'operations' as 'List of operation dicts (same format as edit_document)', providing crucial context about format and relationship to sibling tools.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check whether edit operations would succeed without executing them') and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'edit_document' as the alternative for actual execution. It specifies the resource (edit operations on Google Docs) and the unique validation aspect.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you want to inspect the exact API calls before they execute, or when debugging why an edit might fail') and when not to use it (implied by suggesting use before 'edit_document when uncertain'). It clearly names the alternative sibling tool ('edit_document') for actual execution.

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