video_workflow_validate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses fail-closed behavior, validation checks (op allowlist, @ref resolution, ordering, param introspection, path safety), and error codes. Lacks mention of authentication or permission requirements but is thorough for a validation tool.

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?

Well-structured: opening sentence gives purpose, followed by detailed validator behavior, then return format and args. Front-loaded with key info. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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 output schema present, description adequately covers validation scope, error codes, and parameter. Provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect. Could mention that return is a verdict object, but output schema covers that.

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?

Single parameter spec_path is described as 'Absolute path to the workflow job-spec JSON file', adding meaning beyond the schema (which only had title 'Spec Path'). Since schema coverage is 0%, description compensates effectively.

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?

Clearly specifies 'Validate an agent workflow job-spec without rendering any media', distinguishing it from sibling tools like video_workflow_render and video_workflow_inspect. The verb 'validate' and resource 'agent workflow job-spec' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Implies usage context (validation without rendering) and distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on structural validation. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear given siblings.

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