production.uv_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The one genuinely new trait is 'incomplete checks cannot pass' — it fails closed rather than partially passing, which is useful. Beyond that, nothing is said about what a failure result contains or what thresholds default to.

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 compact sentence with the substantive content (the check categories and fail-closed rule) up front. No filler, though the density of unexpanded jargon (gates, tile policy) edges toward under-specification rather than efficient concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but the description still leaves the required 'relationship' argument and the contents of 'options' undefined for a tool whose behavior depends entirely on those thresholds. For a validation gate with an opaque config object, more detail is needed.

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 coverage is 0% and the 'options' parameter is a bare object with additionalProperties, so the schema conveys nothing. The description partially compensates by naming overlap/flip/stretch/pixel padding and tile policy, which are likely options keys, but the required 'relationship' parameter is left completely unexplained — an agent has no idea what value to supply.

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 names the check categories (overlap, flip, stretch, pixel padding, tile policy), which tells an agent this is a UV gate/validation pass. But 'UV gates' is jargon rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it never explicitly says what is validated (UV sets? tiles?) or how it differs from siblings like uv_analyze or uv_pack.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as uv_analyze (diagnostic) or uv_pack (layout). The only contextual hint is 'incomplete checks cannot pass', which implies preconditions but does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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