titan_validate_rotation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals key behaviors: what is checked, that role incompleteness is treated as an error rather than a warning, and that failing to pass 'role' disables role checks. It doesn't describe return format or failure modes, but the core behavioral nuances are disclosed for a validation tool.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the imperative 'ВСЕГДА' (ALWAYS) to emphasize usage. Every clause provides essential information: when to use, what is validated, error severity, and role parameter necessity. No filler or redundant content.

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 validation tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the description covers the critical contextual aspects: when to call, what is validated, role-specific behavior, and required inputs. It lacks specifics about return values or error reporting, but these are secondary since the agent's primary need is to know when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% for both parameters (lua and role), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that passing 'role' enables role-specific completeness checks, which the schema only hints at. This enhances the agent's understanding of how to use the parameter correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it validates Lua rotation modules by checking syntax, existence of api.*/action.* calls, and role completeness. The verb 'Проверяет' (checks) is specific, and the scope (rotation source code) is clearly defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle docs, specs, or starting rotations.

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 instructs the agent to 'ВСЕГДА вызывай перед выдачей финального кода' (ALWAYS call before giving final code), providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also explains the role parameter's necessity for enabling role checks, which is actionable. This is strong usage guidance without needing to reference alternatives.

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