sd_validate_graph_patch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context by specifying the patch is 'additive' and 'versioned', which are behavioral constraints not fully captured by annotations alone.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the most important information: dry-run, additive patch, and no side effects. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 gives a high-level purpose but omits details about the patch structure constraints (e.g., version '1.0', node count limits) that are present in the schema. However, the output schema and annotations partially compensate, and the tool's core validation behavior is clear. More guidance on validation results or typical use cases would improve 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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter-level explanation. While parameter names ('graph' and 'patch') are self-descriptive and the schema is rich, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions or clarify how to construct the patch object.

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 ('Dry-run') with a clear resource ('a versioned additive graph patch') and outcome ('without changing Designer'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sd_apply_graph_patch, which presumably applies changes.

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 phrase 'without changing Designer' clearly implies this tool is for validation/preview before applying a patch, giving the agent context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name the alternative sd_apply_graph_patch, but the dry-run/no-change framing is a clear usage signal.

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