validate_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that full mode returns errors/warnings/suggestions and minimal mode performs a quick required-fields check, disclosing the validation behavior and output type beyond annotations.

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: two sentences plus an example. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides mode selection guidance and a practical example. Every element contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values are already defined. The description covers the tool's purpose, mode selection, and an example, while the schema fully documents all parameters. Annotations cover safety. Together, this provides complete context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. It adds value with a concrete example (nodeType="nodes-base.slack", config={resource:"channel",operation:"create"}) that illustrates the expected format, going beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 the tool validates n8n node configuration with a specific verb and resource. The example with nodeType and config clarifies its purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like validate_workflow or get_node, 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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use 'full' versus 'minimal' mode, which helps the agent choose appropriate parameters. It does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., validate_workflow), so it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative tool guidance.

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