smartsuite_validate_formula

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return shapes ({valid, safe, warnings} vs. descriptive error message), the failure categories (syntax errors, unknown functions, missing field references), and that a local lint pass adds advisory `lint` warnings for SmartSuite's silent traps. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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-loads the non-destructive guarantee and return contract, then adds syntax and lint details. It is somewhat long with a dense parenthetical trap list, but nearly every clause carries actionable information, so it earns its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers return values (valid/safe/warnings, lint, error messages), the semantics of an optional parameter, and the field-reference format. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: field reference syntax [slug] and chaining [slug].[slug], and that returnType is optional with validation working without it. This goes beyond the schema's terse per-parameter docs.

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 (validate) and resource (SmartSuite formula expression) with the exact scope constraint 'against an application WITHOUT writing anything'. An agent can distinguish this from adjacent validation/analysis siblings like smartsuite_analyze_formulas and smartsuite_validate_automation by resource alone.

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 says 'Use this to check a formula before creating or updating a field', giving clear timing/context. It does not name a competing sibling (e.g. smartsuite_analyze_formulas) or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of 5.

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