softbody_handoff_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Validate' is consistent. However, it adds no extra behavioral details like whether it runs checks or returns diagnostics. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence listing what is validated, which is efficient. However, the listing is dense and could be slightly rephrased for readability.

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?

Given the tool is a validation step likely requiring prior setup (staged DAE), the description omits necessary context about prerequisites, after-effects, or what the output (if any) contains. Output schema exists but description doesn't hint at return values.

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 slot_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what slot_id refers to (e.g., the staging slot for the DAE). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema context.

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 'Validate' as the specific verb and lists concrete items (hashes, axes, bounds, vertices, topology, refs, base evidence) that are validated, making the purpose highly specific and distinguishing it vaguely from sibling tools like softbody_mod_validate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., softbody_mod_validate, mod_validate). The description provides no context about prerequisites, such as that a staged DAE must already exist via softbody_handoff_create.

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