validate_pilot_configuration

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety; the description adds that the tool returns validation status with warnings and errors and is intended pre-deployment. It does not disclose details like required configuration properties or failure behavior, but with annotations and an output schema this is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the key purpose is front-loaded and the return behavior is stated in one additional clause.

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 validation tool with one well-documented parameter, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema, the description covers the essential decision: call it before deployment to get warnings/errors. It could mention prerequisites or valid value sources, but the schema already references list_pilot_options.

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 'configuration' parameter is fully described in the schema (JSON pilot configuration, link to list_pilot_options), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Validate'), resource ('pilot configuration'), and lifecycle context ('before deployment'), and describes the outcome ('Returns valid status with warnings and errors'). It is clearly a read-only validation step, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as verify_change or create_pilot_configuration.

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 phrase 'before deployment' provides a clear usage context, signaling that this tool is the pre-deployment check. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer when to use verify_change or list_pilot_options instead.

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