aedt_change_validation_settings

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Apply' which implies modification, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or output behavior. The brief description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices completeness. The structure is front-loaded but does not earn its place due to missing content.

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?

Given the tool's three parameters and the presence of sibling validation tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'active design validation settings' are, how parameters interact, or what the output schema represents. The description fails to provide sufficient context for proper tool usage.

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%, meaning the description adds no information about the three parameters (entity_check_level, ignore_unclassified, skip_intersections). The description does not explain their purpose or effects, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names and defaults.

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 'Apply active design validation settings' clearly indicates the tool's action (apply) and resource (settings for active design validation). It is a specific verb+resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like aedt_validate_design, which likely runs validation rather than changing settings.

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 such as aedt_validate_design or other settings tools like aedt_change_design_settings. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for use.

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