validate_asset_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('workflow_manifest.v1' with a 'validation' block containing passed, checks, errors, warnings), lists what aspects are checked, and clarifies what is not checked, providing rich behavioral context beyond the input 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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the primary action, second paragraph enumerates checks, third clarifies scope. No redundant or verbose language; every sentence adds value.

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 one complex parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, processing, and return format well. It could hint at prerequisites or error handling, but is largely sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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% — the sole parameter 'spec' has no schema-level description. The tool description partially compensates by naming the document type and listing checks, but it does not detail the expected structure or required properties of the 'spec' object, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 'aseprite_mcp.asset_spec.v1' document, checking if the spec makes sense. It lists specific checks (schema, kind, canvas, etc.) and explicitly contrasts with a future tool for checking a finished sprite, distinguishing it from siblings like 'validate_sprite_for_game_export'.

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 a clear when-not-to-use case: 'This does **not** check a finished sprite against the spec — that's a separate future tool.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other related tools like 'plan_asset_spec' or 'build_asset_from_spec', though the context implies using it before building.

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