supportpages_validate_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by enumerating what is checked and by explicitly clarifying that the operation has no run-finalizing side effect, which is useful for a tool whose name could be confused with a state-changing step. It stops short of describing failure behavior or what a validation result looks like.

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, zero filler, with the scope of validation front-loaded and the non-finalizing caveat immediately after. Nothing needs trimming.

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, read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials: what is validated and that no run state changes. The main omission is workflow placement relative to finalize_article/complete_article, which an agent would have to infer.

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?

There is a single parameter (artifact_dir) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The description adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 verb (validate) and names the three things validated: article schema, image references, and available lint results. It partially distinguishes itself from the finalize/complete siblings via the non-finalizing clause, but never names an alternative directly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the sentence 'Validation does not finalize a generation run' signals this is a pre-finalization check rather than a completion step, which hints at where it sits relative to finalize_article/complete_article. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no stated prerequisites.

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