Validate ICC Plus project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the concrete invariant categories checked and noting the checks are 'generated.' It does not describe the return shape, but that is secondary given the strong annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds a distinct validation category, and the verb-object relationship is immediately clear. It is appropriately sized for the tool's straightforward scope.

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?

The description provides a thorough inventory of what is validated, and the annotations cover side-effect safety. However, it lacks output expectations and any usage context, and with zero parameter semantics an agent can select the tool but must rely on schema defaults and inference to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description contributes almost no parameter information. It does not explain what `structural` toggles, what `max_diagnostics` limits, or how `project_id` is used beyond being the project identifier. The agent is left to infer parameter meaning from property names alone.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Run') and a clear object: generated structural schema checks for an ICC Plus project. It then enumerates the exact categories (ids, references, requirements, memberships, cycles, Custom CSS, export invariants), making its scope distinct from siblings like iccplus_evaluate_requirements or iccplus_project_status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, exclusions, or a preferred workflow such as running validation before export. The description states what the tool does but not when an agent should choose it over other validation-related siblings.

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