pws_validate_show_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'without changing the save' aligns but adds little new safety info. It does add behavioral value by specifying the checks (live show, roster, duplicates, runtime), which tells the agent what validation logic to expect. No contradictions 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler. It is the ideal length for a tool description.

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?

Despite annotations covering safety, the description lacks critical operational details: it does not explain the meaning of the two optional boolean parameters, nor does it describe the return value/format (e.g., boolean, list of issues). Given there is no output schema, the agent cannot know what a successful validation looks like or how to interpret failures, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description had full responsibility to explain parameters. It only implies showId and segments via 'show' and 'proposed show card', but completely ignores allowOverrun and allowMultipleMatches, which are boolean flags that directly affect validation results. This is a significant omission.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') with a clear resource ('a proposed show card') and lists the exact validation dimensions (live show, roster availability, duplicates, runtime). It also distinguishes this from siblings like pws_plan_show or pws_apply_show_plan by explicitly noting it does not change the save.

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 phrase 'without changing the save' implies this is a pre-application check, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use pws_apply_show_plan to actually persist changes), stopping short of the highest standard.

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