Validate Asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two useful traits beyond that — 'deterministic' (repeatable results) and 'LIVE project' (validates current state, not a file) — but says nothing about failure behavior, whether it blocks export, or how issues are reported.

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, no filler: the scope of the checks comes first and the disclaimer second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and the annotations carry the safety profile; the check list plus the compatibility disclaimer make the tool callable without further reading. The only gap is workflow placement — no statement of when in the create/generate/export sequence this gate belongs.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('run deterministic quality gates') against a specific resource ('the LIVE project') and enumerates the checks covered: geometry, hierarchy, pivots, texture/UVs, native keyframes. It does not name or contrast with any sibling (e.g. inspect_project or export_asset), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied — the checklist reads like a pre-export gate, but nothing says when to call it versus inspect_project or what to do with the result. The one genuine guideline is an exclusion: it explicitly does not certify Minecraft runtime compatibility, which at least bounds the tool's authority.

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