ecn_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the API clones the repo and checks ECO/ECN-*.md files for required fields, valid enum values, and filename/ID consistency. This sufficiently discloses the validation behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state that it is read-only.

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 concise with three sentences: first states purpose, second adds operational detail, third provides local alternative. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality and local alternative. It could mention return behavior or error handling, but the output schema likely provides that.

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% (parameter 'project_id' has a description in the schema). The tool description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 'Validate all ECN files for correct frontmatter schema', providing a specific verb (validate) and resource (ECN files). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ecn_create, ecn_get, ecn_list, and ecn_update by focusing on validation.

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 provides clear context: the API clones the repo and validates, while for local projects the CLI command 'parts project ecn validate' is recommended. This guides the agent on when to use this tool vs. local alternatives, though no explicit exclusions are given.

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