Validate ACF

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. What adds value is the disclosure of what it checks (the bare "CHIP " header setacf leaves behind) and the downstream failure mode, which goes beyond the annotation profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('Statically validate an .acf...'), and the parenthetical defect detail earns its place by explaining the target. It is a single dense sentence, though the nested quoting makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally indicate the shape of the validation result (pass/fail, list of defects). It explains what is checked but not what comes back, leaving a gap for a validation tool.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, resolution, or ambiguity-handling detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (.acf) plus the exact class of defect it targets (the bare "CHIP " header) and why it matters (MAX+PLUS II compile failure). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling acf_repair_chip_headers, which addresses the same defect, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 only implied: the mention of 'defects that block compilation' suggests a pre-compile check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to acf_repair_chip_headers as the fix path. The agent must infer the workflow.

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