Set input validator

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

It explains what the attached validator does (reads generated tests, asserts constraints, blocks malformed data from going live) and that this is a pre-publication, non-destructive build step. The annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds workflow context without contradicting them.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first names the action and target, the second explains the validator's purpose and timing. Every sentence earns its place and the key action is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent setter with a full schema and output schema, the description covers the essential use case. It could be slightly more explicit that 'draft' corresponds to the session_id parameter, but sibling tool names and the schema make that connection recoverable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds functional meaning to validator_source by stating that it reads generated tests and asserts constraints, and it clarifies that session_id refers to the draft/build context. This is more than the schema labels provide.

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 names a specific verb ('Attach') and a distinct resource ('input validator to a draft'), making the action unambiguous. This clearly separates it from sibling set_* tools like set_generator or set_custom_checker, whose resources are different artifacts.

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 description gives clear context: the validator is attached during draft preparation and is meant to catch malformed test data before publication. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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