validate_upload_plan

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses the key safety trait: no device modification. However, it does not describe behavior on validation failure, success, or what the output is. For a validation tool, more detail on return status or error conditions would improve transparency.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence achieves direct communication. No unnecessary words. However, given the tool's complexity, a slightly longer description could add value without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits any information about return values, usage contexts, or parameter relationships. With 19 parameters and zero schema documentation, the description is too minimal to support correct tool invocation.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 19 parameters. The agent must infer meanings from parameter names alone (e.g., 'local_dir', 'gameid', 'skip_newer_files'), which is insufficient for correct use.

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?

Description clearly states 'Validate a title upload plan without touching the device.' Verb 'validate' and resource 'title upload plan' are specific. The phrase 'without touching the device' distinguishes it from the sibling 'upload_title' and implies a safe, dry-run operation.

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 implies usage for validation before actual upload by noting 'without touching the device,' but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives like 'upload_title.' No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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