hydra_validate_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the specific validation semantics (manifests, pipeline source/destination resolution) and the consequence that refusal means the job will not run.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and scope; the second reinforces its authoritative role. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, validation scope, and behavioral consequence. The only notable gap is not explicitly distinguishing this from hydra_check_job or explaining job_path format, but overall the agent has enough to call it appropriately.

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% for the single job_path parameter, and the description only indirectly refers to it as 'a job.' The mapping to job_path is obvious from the tool name and parameter title, but the description does not explain path format, expected file types, or how job_path should be resolved. It adds minimal meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a job with the official Hydra ETL validator.' It details exactly what validation covers (four manifests, pipeline.from/pipeline.to resolution), and calls itself 'the ground truth,' which sets it apart from sibling tools like hydra_check_job.

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 provides clear usage context by framing this as the authoritative validation step: 'if this tool refuses, the job will not run.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the ground-truth framing gives an agent enough context to select it for definitive validation.

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