Validate VBA project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful context beyond that: the nature of checks (structural vs code) and a recommendation for pre-risk usage. It does not disclose details like return format or failure behavior, but the output schema likely covers that, and annotations carry the safety burden.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and examples, the second clarifies scope and routes to a sibling, the third gives usage timing. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains what it checks, what it is not for, and when to use it. The agent has enough to decide when to call it and what to expect, without needing additional details like return format (covered by output schema) or performance.

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 100% and the single parameter file_path is already described as 'Absolute path to the Office file.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already documents it fully. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'checks' and the resource 'VBA project', and specifies the scope as 'structural problems' with concrete examples (records disagreeing, missing module in container). It explicitly distinguishes from xlide_analyze for code analysis, so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from its closest sibling without opening schemas.

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 explicit usage guidance: it is for structural validation ('about the container, not about the code') and explicitly says to use xlide_analyze for code. It also recommends calling it 'before risky work on an old or repaired file', giving a clear when-to-use condition.

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