io-profile_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it does not export, but fails to say whether validation is read-only, what outcomes are produced, or whether any state changes occur. This leaves the safety and side-effect profile ambiguous.

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 fluff or repetition. Every word contributes to conveying the primary purpose and key differentiator.

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 a complex 9-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is insufficient. It omits behavioral details, parameter guidance, validation outcome semantics, and error conditions, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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 for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters, failing to explain 'object', 'profile', or the 'CUSTOM override' parameters. The schema titles provide the only hints, but the description itself contributes nothing.

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 action ('Validate'), the target ('an object against a parameterized export profile'), and the critical scoping ('without exporting'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling io-export/io-import tools by emphasizing the no-export behavior.

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?

It implies a pre-export validation use case via 'without exporting', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over io-export or other alternatives. There are no exclusions or named alternative tools, though the context is reasonably clear.

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