validate_manifest

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it does not apply the manifest and does not execute migration_sql. However, it doesn't cover side effects, authentication needs, or return behavior. The description adds moderate transparency beyond the 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loading the main purpose and adding necessary context without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers purpose and usage context well, but lacks information about the return value or response format. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator or validation errors). This gap reduces completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates parameter purposes from schema but adds the important clarification that manifest is not deploy-manifest. This adds some value but does not significantly extend schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool validates an auth/expose manifest without applying it, distinguishing it from deploy-manifest validation. It specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'auth/expose manifest', and explicitly compares to siblings like deploy tools.

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 description provides clear context: use for auth/expose manifests, not deploy manifests. It advises using deploy planning/dry-run for deploy questions, but lacks explicit exclusions for other similar tools like apply_expose, which is a sibling.

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