pws_validate_show_plan

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'without changing the save'. It also adds what is validated: live show, roster availability, duplicates, and runtime, which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not describe how validation failures are returned, but this is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and states scope and side-effect behavior with no waste. Every phrase carries meaning.

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 tool with a complex segments schema and no output schema, the description covers the core validation intent but leaves out what a successful or failed validation returns and does not explain the optional parameters' effect on validation. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

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%, and the description does not clarify the meaning of showId, segments, allowOverrun, or allowMultipleMatches. The schema provides names and types, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions, leaving important semantics like allowOverrun and allowMultipleMatches ambiguous.

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 a specific verb (Validate) and resource (proposed show card) and lists the exact validation dimensions: live show, roster availability, duplicates, runtime. It also states the key differentiator 'without changing the save', so an agent can distinguish it from persistence tools like pws_apply_show_plan.

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 clearly implies a pre-persistence validation step by saying 'without changing the save'. This gives context on when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to avoid calling persistence tools instead.

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