arango_validate_references

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It mentions a 'fix_invalid' parameter but does not clarify whether this modifies documents (destructive) or is read-only, nor does it describe error handling or output format. The behavior beyond validation is opaque.

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 sentence, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief to convey necessary details, trading off completeness for brevity.

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 no output schema and only basic parameter information, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, side effects (e.g., when fix_invalid is true), or prerequisite conditions. The tool's behavior is inadequately explained for an AI agent to use 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 only 25%, and the description adds no parameter-level details. It references 'specified fields' for reference_fields but does not explain their format or meaning. The fix_invalid parameter is mentioned but not elaborated. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 resource 'documents in a collection have valid references in specified fields'. It differentiates from siblings like arango_validate_document (single document) and arango_validate_graph_integrity (graph structure) by focusing on cross-document reference validation.

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 the tool is for validating references across documents, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like arango_validate_document or arango_validate_graph_integrity. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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