copalibre_profile_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool calls the same validator as the installation path, so acceptance is exactly installation acceptance, and that it never authors profiles and requires no auth token. It doesn't cover how failures are surfaced, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the distinguishing constraint and the workflow position. No filler.

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 validator with no output schema and no annotations, the description establishes what is validated against and where it sits in the pipeline, which is what an agent needs to invoke it. The main gap is how the pass/fail result or errors are returned, which is left unstated.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an opaque nested object with no documented structure. The description compensates only indirectly by pointing at copalibre_profile_schema as the producer of a valid profile, but adds no internal shape or format detail.

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 tournament-profile document') and clarifies the scope precisely: it judges an existing draft rather than authoring one. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like copalibre_profile_schema and the module scaffold/submit tools.

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?

Explicitly places the tool in the workflow: use after copalibre_profile_schema, iteratively, and before copalibre_module_scaffold/_validate_local. It also notes it needs no API token, removing a common invocation blocker.

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