pixera_validate_feed_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but 'validate' strongly implies a non-destructive read-only check and an output schema exists to describe the result. It discloses the key constraint rule but not whether it throws, returns a boolean, or what failure looks like beyond that schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the validating purpose first and the constraint example second; no filler. It is lean to the point of being terse, which slightly undercuts structure.

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 three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers only one constraint rule. The output schema relieves the need to document return values, but an agent still lacks the meaning of surface_type and the accepted feed_mode values.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the feed_mode/UV-continuity relationship, but surface_type is never described (what values, why it matters) and no concrete enum values for feed_mode are given, leaving two of three parameters under-specified.

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 names a specific verb+resource: validating a feed-mode choice for a surface, which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not contrast itself with the other validate_* siblings (validate_softedge, validate_canvas_resolution), so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical ('None' only for 3D/non-continuous UV) conveys a validity rule that implies when this check matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or reference to an alternative approach. Usage must be inferred from the validation framing.

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