validate_change

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

No annotations are provided. The description states it validates against constraints but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or what happens on success/failure.

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, concise sentence with 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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not specify return format, the nature of constraints, or relationship with tools like '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 low (33%). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the enum for change_type or the semantics of file_path.

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 verb 'validate' and the resource 'proposed code change', and the context 'against known constraints' distinguishes it from siblings like 'simulate_change' and 'find_contradictions'.

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 validating changes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use.

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