cliprompt_add_validation

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, and it reveals nothing about side effects. It does not state whether files are modified in place, whether the api_key parameter is required for LLM calls, error behavior, or idempotency, so an agent cannot anticipate the consequences of invoking it.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words, which is efficient and places the action first. However, it leans toward under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness, omitting details a more complete description would be expected to carry.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented api_key parameter, the description leaves critical gaps: what kind of validation is added, where prompts live in the project, what the api_key is for, and what a successful invocation does to the project.

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 50% (directory is described as 'Project directory'; api_key has no schema description), and the description adds no parameter meaning. The api_key parameter remains entirely unexplained in both schema and description, and the description offers no context on what 'directory' must contain for validation to be added.

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 specifies a concrete action verb ('Add'), a clear resource ('input validation'), and a target ('prompts'), so an agent understands the core operation. The cliprompt_ prefix further narrows the domain to CLI prompt tooling. However, it does not differentiate from semantically adjacent siblings like form_add_validation or jtt_generate_validators, and leaves the flavor of validation unspecified.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as form_add_validation, jtt_generate_validators, or cliprompt_generate_wizard. No prerequisites (e.g., existing prompt project structure), no exclusions, and no indication of what 'input' refers to in the prompt context.

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