Validate a Google Play app edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description usefully reinforces that the edit is not committed. However, it says nothing about what a failed validation produces (thrown error vs. list of errors), whether the edit remains open afterwards, or any quota/latency behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the non-committing constraint is stated last where it most usefully qualifies the action. Nothing is redundant.

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 two-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin. An agent still has to guess where editId comes from and what the validation result looks like, which are the two things it needs to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so the description must carry the burden and it does not: neither packageName nor editId is mentioned. It omits the crucial fact that editId is the transient ID returned by create_edit and must belong to the same packageName.

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 gives a specific verb ("checks") and resource ("an app edit") plus the scope of the check ("for publishing errors"). The phrase "without committing it" implicitly separates it from commit_edit, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is a pre-commit sanity check on an open edit. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention that create_edit must precede it, and no routing to commit_edit or discard_edit after validation.

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