validateNewObject

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing the refusal reasons (already taken, reserved, wrong namespace) and the critical edge case where some collections return 200 with an empty body and the library reads that as failure. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs.

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 three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the refusal-reason behavior is stated next, and the empty-body caveat is saved for last where it can be appreciated as a warning. Every sentence earns its place, though the third sentence is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the tool answers and the problematic empty-body case. It stops short of telling the agent how to safely distinguish a truly free name from a false refusal, except by deferring to createObject/createAndWrite. This is enough for most callers but leaves some ambiguity about relying on the result.

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% for the single options parameter, including the fields {objtype, objname, packagename, description} and the group/package variants. The tool description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Ask the system whether a new object may be created under this name, in this package, with this description.' It also adds the exact context (the pre-creation ADT check) and differentiates it from createObject/createAndWrite by noting they handle the check themselves.

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 states this is the check 'ADT runs before a creation dialog is accepted,' making the intended pre-creation use clear. It also names createObject and createAndWrite as tools that handle the check internally. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of createObject when you only need validation,' leaving a small amount of inference.

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