Validate a reusable workflow-profile override and return a representative title preview without saving it. Use it to catch profile errors before applying changes.
Validate a reusable workflow-profile override and return a representative title preview without saving it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the most important trait — that nothing is persisted — which is real behavioral value. But it says nothing about what happens on an invalid profile (error vs. warning list), whether validation is partial or strict, or any permission requirements.
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, no filler, with the non-persistence guarantee and the returned preview front-loaded. Nothing here could be cut 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?
The output schema covers the return value, but the input remains opaque: a nested, open-ended object with zero documentation means an agent cannot construct a valid call from this definition alone. For a validation tool whose whole value depends on supplying the right override shape, this is a significant gap.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema conveys no field meanings at all. The description only labels it a 'workflow-profile override', giving no hint about expected keys, nesting, or which fields matter for a 'representative title preview'.
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 pair ('Validate a reusable workflow-profile override') plus a side effect of the call ('return a representative title preview'). The phrase 'without saving it' implicitly distinguishes it from save_project_workflow_profile, though it never names that sibling or explains its relation to get_project_workflow_profile.
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?
Usage is only implied: the dry-run framing ('without saving it') suggests calling this before save_project_workflow_profile, but there is no explicit 'use when' condition, no stated preconditions, and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.