validate_presentation

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the dry-run nature ('without writing files') and the recommended call order, but says nothing about what validation checks, whether failures raise errors or return a report, or what happens with a malformed IR.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and side-effect guarantee, then usage, then parameter hint. No filler, though the phrase 'when the model needs' is slightly ambiguous about who the consumer is.

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?

The presence of an output schema removes any need to describe return values, and the workflow role is clear. However, with zero annotations and full behavioral burden on the description, missing failure-mode behavior leaves gaps for a validation tool operating on a nested object.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for include_canonical, explaining the normalized form and default theme fields the schema never mentions; the required 'presentation' parameter relies entirely on its self-evident name and the surrounding context.

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 and resource ('Validate complete Presentation IR') and immediately scopes it with 'without writing files', which separates it from the sibling render_presentation. An agent can distinguish this from get_presentation_ir and render_presentation without opening any schema.

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?

'Call this before render_presentation' gives an explicit sequencing condition tied to a named sibling, and the include_canonical sentence adds a conditional use case. There is no explicit 'do not use when' guidance, so it falls just short of the top band.

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