Validate Design

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it runs the same checks as create_module/update_module and is a non-submitting validation, reinforcing safety. However, it could mention the return value (e.g., validation errors) for full transparency.

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 sentences: first states core purpose, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded, and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple validation tool with good annotations and schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could mention the output (e.g., success/error response) but overall is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds limited value beyond schema. It does provide extra guidance on workspaceId (omit if set via env or set_workspace) and reiterates mode semantics, which is helpful but not extensive.

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 clearly states the tool validates a module schema without submitting, and distinguishes it from create_module and update_module by positioning it as a dry-run for iteration. The verb 'validate' and resource 'module schema' are specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (iterating on a draft, before partial update_module) and when it is optional (create_module already runs these checks). It provides clear alternatives and context.

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