预检画布

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: which invariants are checked, that placeholder nodes lacking a model surface as warnings rather than errors, and — most importantly — the exact semantic scope of the `valid` result. It stops short of saying whether validation is blocking or advisory for downstream calls.

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 tight sentences, front-loading what is checked before the caveat about the `valid` field. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler. Typo-like compression ("核节点") slightly hurts immediate readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be enumerated, and the description usefully pre-empts over-interpretation of the `valid` flag. For a two-identifier read-only check tool this is close to complete, missing only explicit ordering relative to apply/submit siblings.

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 would ideally explain project_uuid/canvas_uuid, but it says nothing about them. The parameters are plain canonical identifiers whose meaning is largely self-evident, so the gap is modest, but no meaning is added 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 pairs a specific verb (validate/precheck) with a concrete set of checks: nodes, dependency cycles, and real-time constraints of selected models. Siblings such as pavo_apply_canvas and pavo_submit_task are clearly different actions, though the description never names them or says explicitly that this is the non-mutating precheck step before them.

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 closing sentence ("valid only indicates a known-protocol precheck, not that generation or final rendering will succeed") implies the intended role as a pre-apply/pre-submit gate, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no named alternative, is provided. Usage has to be inferred from context.

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