sd_validate_graph_patch

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

The description explicitly states 'without changing Designer', which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 the essential aspect (dry-run, no changes) but lacks details about validation behavior (e.g., what errors it returns, what exactly it validates). Given that an output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed, but behavioral expectations could be clearer.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain the 'graph' or 'patch' parameters beyond what is inferable from the name and schema structure. No additional semantics are provided.

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 'Dry-run a versioned additive graph patch without changing Designer' uses a specific verb-resource pair ('validate graph patch') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sd_create_node' or 'sd_set_node_parameter' which modify the graph.

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 implies usage for validation before applying a patch, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for actual modifications) or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for most agents.

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