ue_x3d_validate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: it 'rejects' various issues and 'does not touch the editor', consistent with readOnly. It also specifies the return format {ok, errors}, which goes beyond annotations.

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: the first states the main action and specifics, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the return format ({ok, errors}), lists validation checks, and provides usage context. It could mention if the function throws errors, but the return format is clear.

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?

The schema has a single parameter 'x3d' of type string with 0% schema description coverage. The description refers to 'X3D document' but does not specify whether the string should be the raw XML content or a file path. This ambiguity reduces clarity for the agent.

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 verb 'validate' and the resource 'X3D document', and lists specific validation checks (grammar, dangling USE references, numeric arity, non-X3D roots, NaN/inf). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_x3d_apply and ue_x3d_export.

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 says 'Run this on model-edited X3D before apply', providing clear when-to-use context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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