validate_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is non-modifying ('does not modify the archive or rewrite canonical order') and states important domain conventions (centimetres, degrees, inverted y-axis). This materially helps an agent predict side effects and interpret results.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by high-value constraints and an example. Each sentence contributes useful information, and the example is a practical usage hint rather than padding.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility. The description covers invocation, unit conventions, and side-effect guarantees. The remaining gap is that it does not specify what 'validate' checks or what invalid inputs yield, but this is reasonable for a one-parameter tool with an output schema.

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?

The schema provides only a string name and no description, so the example 'project_path='house.sh3d'' adds some meaning by showing the expected form (a local file path). However, the description does not explain path resolution, existence requirements, or accepted file variants beyond the .sh3d extension.

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 ('Validate') and resource ('an existing .sh3d project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling creation/add/list tools such as create_project and add_wall. The example further reinforces what the tool is for, though it leaves 'validate' somewhat open-ended.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The word 'existing' implies it applies to already-created projects, but it does not compare against alternatives like open_reference or explain when validation should be preferred or avoided.

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