validate_saga

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: 'free and has no side effects' explicitly declares a read-only, safe operation, and 'report what's wrong' sets expectations for the result. It stops short of describing granularity of findings, but an output schema exists to cover the return shape.

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 with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by input options and then the usage recommendation in priority order.

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-optional-param tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, input alternatives, and safety profile — enough to invoke correctly. Only marginal detail, such as what happens if both inputs are supplied, is left unaddressed.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by framing path and content as mutually exclusive alternatives ('give either... or...'), resolving the ambiguity of both being optional; the content parameter's pre-write use case is reinforced in prose.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource pair: check a Saga descriptor against the schema and report what's wrong. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_saga_schema (retrieves the schema) or explain_rule (explains rules), though it never names an alternative 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?

Explains the two input modes (path on disk vs. YAML content) and gives a clear usage directive: 'prefer it over assuming an edit was correct.' That establishes when to call it, but there is no explicit when-not condition or named alternative for edge cases.

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