Validate Service Configuration

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

The description adds key behavioral details beyond annotations: it discloses the network probe side effect ('not side-effect-free') when probeReachability is set, and explains the checks performed. Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructive nature; the description enriches the safety profile.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose and main checks, second covers the special probe behavior, third summarizes output. No extraneous information.

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 core behavior and key constraints. It lacks details on required permissions (e.g., for workspaceId) and does not describe the exact output format beyond 'list of checks with ok/fail status,' but given the absence of an output schema and the richness of annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 15 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the XOR rule for repositoryUrl/registryUrl and noting the probeReachability side effect, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Preflight-validate a service configuration before creating or updating it.' It lists specific validations (source XOR rule, deploy_type/runtime compatibility, name length) and distinguishes from siblings that create or update services.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'before creating or updating it,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined enough for an agent to decide.

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