validate_metadata_schema

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it discloses the important non-mutating trait ('without embedding') and the supported schema families. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether validation has side effects, or how failures surface, so it covers only part of what an agent needs.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence with the action and the key differentiator front-loaded. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves a notable gap: it never says what validation returns (pass/fail, error list) or how results are reported. The core purpose is conveyed, but an agent lacks the return-value context needed to use it confidently.

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 documents all three parameters and the enum. The description's mention of 'lifestyle, product, and orbit schemas' merely echoes the schema_type enum values, adding no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (validate) and resource (metadata against ORBIT schemas) and adds the scope 'without embedding', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling embed_image_metadata. Clear enough that an agent can tell it apart from the read/create siblings, though it never names the alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: you call this when you want to check metadata against a schema without writing it. The 'without embedding' clause hints at a when-not condition relative to embed_image_metadata, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives.

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