validate_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the validation intent but doesn't explain whether validation is read-only, what happens on failure, whether it modifies anything, or what 'known constraints' refers to. This lack of transparency for a tool that could have side effects is a significant gap.

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 one short sentence that gets to the point. However, at 8 words, it is extremely terse and could have expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose. It is efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the validation result looks like and when to use the tool. It only provides the core purpose, missing critical context about return values, behavior on constraint violation, and relationship to other constraint-related tools.

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 covers 33% of parameters with descriptions (only proposed_content). The tool description does not mention file_path, change_type, or explain the enum values. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, leaving file_path and change_type under-specified.

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 'validate' with a clear object 'proposed code change' and scope 'against known constraints,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulate_change (which implies running a simulation). It clearly states what the tool does.

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 used for checking changes against constraints, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over simulate_change or how it relates to get_constraints. No alternatives are named, and no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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