Validate library asset

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the specific validation behavior (checking existence and manifest reference) but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or return types beyond that.

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. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 simple input, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error messages) or how to interpret results. This is a significant gap for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides minimal context: 'local library asset' for path and 'optional manifest' for manifest_path. This adds some meaning but lacks details on format, valid values, or how the manifest reference is verified.

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 ('check') and resource ('local library asset') and clarifies the scope ('exists and is referenced by an optional manifest'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'browse_library' or 'auto_tag_library_asset' by focusing on 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 usage for validation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from context.

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