unreal_validation_start

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses side effects, cooperative cancellation, absence of automatic retries, that nothing is saved, and that 'not_validated is never a pass.' It also explains automatic binding to the authenticated project and rejection on editor changes. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but efficient; the core purpose is front-loaded, and each following sentence adds meaningful caveats. Some jargon ('PIE', 'expected project binding') is terse, but the overall size is appropriate for a tool with notable behavioral complexity.

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 the destructive, non-idempotent nature, the description covers the necessary operational expectations: side effects, no retries, cooperative cancellation, polling via job_id, nothing saved, and project-binding behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required here. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description maps 'validators' to rule_ids and 'exact assets' to asset_paths. It does not further specify the expected identifier format, path syntax, or how the rule_ids are obtained beyond implying they are approved project validators. This provides partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run only selected approved project validators on exact assets as a bounded native job.' This clearly identifies the operation and scope, and distinguishes it from related sibling tools like unreal_validation_rules (listing) and unreal_validation_job (querying results).

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 gives practical usage context: listing validators is separate from authorization, this adapter requires an expected project binding, no PIE or retries, and callers should poll the returned job_id. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives for listing vs. running, but the guidance is enough to steer an agent toward correct use.

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