validateIntegration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly. It discloses the severity model, return object shape, the meaning of 'valid' and 'summary', the warning-to-review demotion, the runtime source of truth for permissions, and that the project key is checked for shape not just presence. This goes far beyond a simple mutability hint.

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 long but every sentence contributes substantive detail—no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Pre-test gate') and then methodically enumerates checks and behaviors. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, though it could arguably be trimmed into bullet points without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure, severity semantics, and interpretation of results. It also covers edge cases (voice-only apps, derived permissions, runtime source of truth) and integrates with sibling tools, making it complete for an AI agent to invoke and interpret correctly.

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 schema description already covers the single parameter (projectPath) at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small nuance about passing it explicitly when the project isn't the cwd, but this largely restates the schema. No extra parameter meaning is needed beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly identifies validateIntegration as a 'Pre-test gate' running severity-tiered checks across the project, enumerating the major check categories and explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like inspectIntegration. The specific verb 'validate' plus the detailed list of checks leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'USE after making changes, before testing' and 'DON'T USE for reading state without judging it (use inspectIntegration).' It also clarifies that only generateConnectionModule mints the project key, preventing misuse. This is the gold standard for when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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