Validate Action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing the critical no-side-effect behavior and the two conditions checked. It stops short of explaining error behavior or prerequisites, but the output schema covers return-shape details.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The essential dry-run semantics are front-loaded, and the no-execution guarantee is stated clearly and immediately.

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 the output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and a close sibling named verify_action. It does not explain the role of any parameter, how targets are specified, or how validation results are communicated beyond the schema.

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 gives no parameter-level guidance. It only mentions 'an action' generically, leaving the 9 parameters—especially the optional x, y, uri, text, device, som_id, package, and app_name—completely unexplained. The agent cannot determine how to construct a valid target from this description.

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 operation (dry-run validation), the resource (an action), and the exact checks performed: whether it is allowed and whether its target exists. The phrase 'Nothing is executed' clearly distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings.

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 dry-run framing and 'Nothing is executed' imply this is a pre-flight check before executing an action. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over verify_action or other validation/execution siblings, and gives no when-not-to-use guidance.

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