Pre-validate an update set or scoped app before deployment to identify conflicts and missing dependencies, reducing deployment risks.
Pre-validate an update set or app before deployment — check for conflicts and missing dependencies
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_sys_id | No | Scoped app sys_id (alternative to update set) | |
| update_set_sys_id | No | Update set sys_id to validate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that validation specifically checks for conflicts and missing dependencies, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe output format or side effects, but the read-only annotation reduces the 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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundant or 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?
Given two optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description provides sufficient context for understanding what the tool does. It could mention what the validation returns, but the stated checks and pre-deployment framing make it adequate for a simple validation tool.
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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Scoped app sys_id (alternative to update set)' and 'Update set sys_id to validate'). The description simply paraphrases 'update set or app' without adding additional semantics 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 uses a specific verb ('pre-validate') with clear resources ('an update set or app') and defines the scope ('before deployment') and purpose ('check for conflicts and missing dependencies'). This distinguishes it from similar validation tools like validate_artifact, which target artifacts rather than deployment readiness.
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 phrase 'before deployment' provides a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as preview_update_set, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.