statelydb-validate-schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Validate' implies a read-only check, but the description never states whether it mutates state, requires auth, what happens on invalid input, or what the result looks like. This is a thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One short declarative sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and behavioral detail.

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 tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least explain what a validation result conveys (success/failure, error reporting). That gap leaves the agent unable to predict the response.

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?

The single 'schema' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) as 'The schema definition to validate,' so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning such as format expectations or size limits beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 ('StatelyDB elastic schema definition'), so the action and object are unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like statelydb-validate-migrations or statelydb-schema-put, leaving the agent to infer scope from names 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must a schema be generated first), and no reference to alternatives such as validate-migrations or schema-put. The agent must infer context purely from the tool name.

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