validate_object_naming

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safe read-only behavior, but the description adds valuable context by enumerating the kinds of checks performed (conventions and conflict detection). It does not disclose the exact output format or behavior on invalid names, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a concise enumeration of what is checked. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description conveys the core functionality and constraints well, but with no output schema, it does not mention what the return value represents (e.g., a boolean or a list of violations). Also, usage context and prerequisites are not covered. For a validation tool with moderate complexity, this is a clear gap.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds semantic context by mentioning extension naming and conflict detection, which maps to the baseObjectName parameter, but it does not add substantive details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('validate') with a clear resource ('proposed D365FO object name') and explicitly lists the validation aspects (extension naming, ISV prefix, type-specific suffixes, conflict detection). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_code, which focuses on code validation.

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 purpose implies when to use (before naming or generating an object), but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention related tools like generate_object or suggest_edt, so usage context is only implied.

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