Preview and validate pending changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'without touching the environment,' which is a critical safety guarantee, and enumerates the validation checks performed (schema order, id uniqueness, refs, location, web resource existence). This exceeds minimal transparency, though it omits details like behavior when no pending changes exist.

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 two sentences: the first delivers the action, content, validation scope, and non-mutating nature; the second gives an imperative usage directive. No words are wasted, and the most important information ('without touching the environment' and 'Always call before ribbon_publish') is prominent.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively covers what the tool returns (working XML + validation report), the scope of validation, the safety profile, and the intended call timing. It could add edge-case behavior (e.g., no pending changes) but is sufficiently complete for a dry-run validation tool among many ribbon siblings.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the entity logical name and the optional environment URL with clear examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema's documentation is sufficiently complete that the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resource ('working RibbonDiffXml alongside the full validation report'), listing the validation categories. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it runs 'without touching the environment,' positioning it as a non-mutating preview rather than an edit or publish tool.

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 explicit instruction 'Always call before ribbon_publish' clearly states when to use this tool, giving a strong usage signal. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for specific scenarios, but the placement relative to the publish workflow is unambiguous.

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