skypilot_volume_validate

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: the server-side check, error-on-failure, and success-on-pass semantics. This gives the agent real behavioral context beyond annotations, though it says nothing about cost or latency of the server-side check.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action and the key non-mutation constraint. No filler; slightly repetitive in restating 'valid/success/error' but efficient overall.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the success/error outcome. However, with 7 undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, an agent lacks enough guidance to construct a valid call without opening external references.

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 0% across 7 parameters (2 required), yet the description explains none of them. It does not clarify what name, volume_type, size, infra, config, labels, or use_existing mean or which combinations are valid for validation, so the parameter semantics burden is entirely unmet.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (validate a volume configuration) and explicitly scopes it as 'without creating it,' which distinguishes it from the mutating skypilot_volume_apply sibling. It is clear and agent-usable, though it never names the alternative directly.

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 'without creating it' implies this is a dry-run check to run before an apply, but it never states when to prefer validation over skypilot_volume_apply, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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