comp_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It lists what gets validated but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when validation fails, whether errors are returned or thrown, or what the output/result looks like. This is a significant gap for a validation tool an agent may rely on to decide whether rendering should proceed.

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 filler words. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope and timing context, though this brevity comes at the cost of behavioral detail.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only one under-described parameter, the description should provide more operational context. It does not explain the validation result format, error behavior, side effects, or prerequisites, leaving an agent unable to fully anticipate the tool's response.

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 needed to compensate, but it does not mention comp_id or how it is used. The schema itself gives comp_id a UUID format, making the single parameter somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the structured input schema.

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 states a specific verb ('validate') and domain ('references, time ranges, transitions and media') tied to a composition context, which is enough to identify the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly say 'composition,' but the comp_ prefix and editing-related terms make the resource clear. No sibling tool duplicates this validation function, so differentiation is not an issue.

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 phrase 'before rendering' provides clear contextual guidance on when to call this tool: prior to starting a render. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no direct sibling alternative for validation, so the timing guidance is sufficient for basic routing.

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