Validate Open Edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation is a dry-run and does not commit or discard, which is meaningful. However, it doesn't explain what validation checks are performed, whether any state changes occur on the open edit, or any prerequisites beyond the schema, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 only two sentences, with the primary action and key constraint front-loaded. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating what the tool does and contrasting it with the closest sibling. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: it is a non-destructive validation of an existing open edit, and it differentiates from validate_edit. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (e.g., the edit must have been created via create_edit), but the phrase 'one you are building' implies this sufficiently for an agent.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline of 3.

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 ('Dry-run') and resource ('open edit'), and immediately clarifies the tool's non-destructive nature. It clearly distinguishes itself from validate_edit in the next sentence, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly contrasts with the sibling validate_edit, explaining that validate_edit opens and discards its own edit while this tool checks an edit the user is building. This provides an explicit alternative and condition for choosing this tool, fulfilling the highest bar for usage guidance.

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