nexterm_validate_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint, so network access and safety are covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact — the response contains discovered content counts — but says nothing about failure behavior for unreachable/invalid URLs or whether remote content is actually fetched and how much.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 this covers the essentials, but with no output schema the phrase 'discovered content counts' is left undefined (entries? folders? scripts?) and error/validation semantics are absent — the agent cannot predict the return shape.

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?

A single required 'url' parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only constrains it to a non-empty string. The description narrows it to a 'source URL' (as opposed to an arbitrary URL), which is modest but real added meaning, without format examples or scheme requirements.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('source URL'), plus the observable outcome ('report discovered content counts'). This clearly separates it from nexterm_sync_source and nexterm_create_source, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus nexterm_create_source, nexterm_update_source, or nexterm_sync_source, and no prerequisites (e.g. 'run before creating a source to preflight the URL'). The only guidance is implied by the word 'validate'.

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