nx_preflight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether validation is read-only, what checks are performed, what the return value or error behavior is, or whether it has side effects. The description only hints at timing, not actual behavior, leaving the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 that front-loads the purpose and timing. No filler words; every element contributes to the core meaning.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot know what validation entails, how to interpret results, or what expectedFeatureDelta controls. For a preflight tool that gates mutations, this is dangerously incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It does not mention 'operation' or 'expectedFeatureDelta' at all, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from the schema's enum and type. This is a critical gap for a tool that requires a specific operation to validate.

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) and a precise resource (one exact planned operation against current NX state) and clearly positions the tool as a pre-mutation gate. It is distinct from siblings that perform mutations or post-mutation verification, so an agent can readily identify its role.

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 phrase 'immediately before mutation' provides explicit timing guidance. It implies this tool should precede mutation tools (e.g., nx_extrude, nx_create_expression) but does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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