bourne_validate_request

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

The annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful scope context that the annotations to capture: the tool explicitly does not perform discovery, planning, persistence, or execution. It also implies that normalization is a pure transform rather than a stateful pipeline action. The output schema covers the return behavior without needing description repetition.

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?

One sentence with a clear verb and object, followed by a compact list of excluded behaviors. There is no filler, no repeated schema information, and the most decision-relevant scope information appears early.

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 single-parameter validation tool with a full nested schema and output schema, there is enough information for an agent to call it correctly. The description cleanly separates it from the sibling plan, discover, execute, and reconcile tools, and the missing return-format details are unnecessary because an output schema is present.

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 covers the single request parameter very thoroughly, including all nested ExecutionRequest fields plus its own descriptive string. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond identifying the request type and the action to apply to it. A 100% schema description coverage gives a baseline of 3, and the description does not significantly exceed it or need to.

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 states a concrete action, Validate and normalize, and names a specific resource, ExecutionRequest v2. It also distinguishes itself from pipeline steps by explicitly excluding discovery, planning, persistence, and execution, which maps cleanly to sibling tools like bourne_discover, bourne_plan, and bourne_execute_plan.

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 tool clearly signals when it should be used: whenever an ExecutionRequest needs pre-flight validation or normalization, and it explicitly rules out other pipeline stages. It does not name alternatives explicitly such as use bourne_plan instead when you need planning, but the exclusion list is strong enough not to require much inference.

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