validate_deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's statement 'check for conflicts and missing dependencies' adds context about the checking behavior but no contradiction. It doesn't elaborate on other behavioral traits like permissions or error handling.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous 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 simple tool with two optional parameters, annotations present, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and inputs. It could optionally mention the format of validation results, but the description is adequate for the agent to understand 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds context by linking parameters to 'app' and 'update set' and explaining the validation purpose. This is sufficient but does not provide additional constraints or format details beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Pre-validate an update set or app before deployment — check for conflicts and missing dependencies'. It uses a specific verb ('pre-validate') and resource ('update set or app'), and distinguishes itself from sibling validation tools like validate_artifact, validate_property, and validate_query.

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 context for when to use the tool ('before deployment') and mentions the two alternative inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for other validation contexts, though the sibling list suggests differentiation.

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