validate_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'without writing anything' phrase is largely redundant. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it does reinforce the non-mutating nature against sibling tools like apply_import.

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 that conveys the action and the key constraint without extraneous detail. Every word 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 the existence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not clarify the purpose of document versus source_uri, which are both optional and undocumented in the schema. This is a notable gap for a validation tool with 4 parameters, though the overall simplicity of the tool mitigates the impact.

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 50%, with document and source_uri having no descriptions. The tool description does not explain the relationship between these parameters or when to use one over the other. The only parameter guidance comes from the schema for project_ref and agent_session_handle, leaving the core input parameters ambiguously specified.

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 verb 'validate' and the resource 'logical project import document,' while the phrase 'without writing anything' distinguishes it from apply_import and other mutation tools. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 a dry-run validation use case by stating 'without writing anything,' but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid using the tool. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary purpose, but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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