validate_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the dry-run/no-create behavior and describes both success and failure return shapes. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the key side-effect and output behavior are well-covered.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the return behavior is explained, and the usage direction is provided. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter validation tool, the description covers the tool's purpose, side effects, return values, and usage context. No output schema exists, so the description's explanation of return results fills that gap. Missing minor details like auth requirements are acceptable for a dry-run operation.

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 the schema already documents type and config with examples. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('check config'), and frames it as a dry-run that does not create the check. This clearly distinguishes it from create_check and diagnose_check siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this before create_check when assembling a config from scratch or modifying a sample. This gives the agent a concrete trigger and names the alternative tool, satisfying the when/alternative requirement.

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