copalibre_descriptor_validate

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: it runs 'the same validator the installation path applies', so acceptance here equals installation acceptance, and it needs no API token. It stops short of describing the output/failure shape or how errors are reported, which is the remaining gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by differentiation, usage ordering, and a token note. The parenthetical example list is slightly dense but each clause adds selection value; no filler sentences.

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?

For a one-parameter validator with a generic object schema and no output schema, the description supplies the needed workflow position, equivalence to install-time validation, and no-auth note. It could better state what a validation result looks like, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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% and the single parameter is an undetailed nested object, so the description is the only source of meaning. It characterizes the parameter as a candidate descriptor and enumerates example cross-field constraints (odd best-of series span, resolution class vs. resolution script exclusivity), which conveys the semantic shape the input must satisfy.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Validates a candidate discipline descriptor document') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings: it 'never authors a descriptor, only judges one already drafted', contrasting with copalibre_descriptor_schema. An agent can tell what it does and what it does not do without any other context.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing and named alternatives: 'Use it after copalibre_descriptor_schema, iteratively, before copalibre_module_scaffold/_validate_local.' The iteration guidance and position in the workflow leave nothing to inference.

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