Validate OpenClaw Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about what the validation actually checks (structural errors that would cause startup failure) and that it targets the remote gateway config. This is useful beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail the return format or whether it reports pass/fail. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains what it checks, and the third/fourth provide usage conditions. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It's front-loaded with the most important information and stays within a reasonable length.

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 one optional parameter and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it checks, and when to use it. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the output format (e.g., pass/fail, error report). However, with no output schema and annotations indicating a safe operation, the agent likely needs to know the result format to interpret the response. Still, the description is largely complete for invocation decisions.

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 single parameter stackName is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter details. Since the schema already explains the parameter and its default behavior, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add value here 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 clearly states the tool validates the OpenClaw gateway config against a known schema, checking for specific structural errors (wrong types, unknown top-level keys). It distinguishes itself from the config-changing sibling (clawops_config_set) by naming the alternative and its use case. The verb 'validate' and resource 'remote OpenClaw gateway config' are precise and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' sections give concrete scenarios: verifying config before restarting or after manual edits, and explicitly routing config changes to clawops_config_set. This is the gold standard for usage guidance – the agent knows exactly when to invoke this tool and when to choose a sibling.

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