validate_change

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'validate', implying a read-only check, but does not confirm read-only status, side effects, required permissions, or other constraints. The agent lacks insight into the tool's behavior.

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, which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the key action, but the brevity leaves out critical information that could be added without verbosity.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and 25 sibling tools), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'known constraints' are, what the validation result looks like, or how it differs from tools like 'simulate_change' or 'get_constraints'.

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 33% (only 'proposed_content' has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. The 'change_type' enum values are unexplained, and 'file_path' format is not clarified.

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: validating a code change against constraints. It uses a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('proposed code change'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'simulate_change' or 'find_contradictions', though the action is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'simulate_change', 'get_constraints'). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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