project_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior — it touches the filesystem to compare originals against imported fingerprints, so a moved or modified source file is a real failure mode — but it does not say what happens on mismatch, whether it is slow on large projects, or what the validation produces. Since no output schema exists, that gap matters more.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the scope exclusion following. Every clause 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?

The tool is simple (one required param, read-only, closed-world) and annotations cover its safety profile, but with no output schema the description should say what a validation result looks like or what a fingerprint mismatch implies for the caller. As written, an agent knows what it checks but not what it gets back or what to do with a failure.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage stating it is an absolute path to the local video project directory, so the schema does the work. The description adds no meaning about path expectations or what the directory must contain. Baseline 3 is 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 names a specific verb+resource pair ("Validate timeline") and a second concrete check ("confirm originals still match imported fingerprints"), which is far more informative than the bare tool name. It also excludes a scope ("Does not judge creative quality"), helping separate it from review_cuts. It stops short of contrasting itself with the inspection siblings (project_inspect, draft_inspect).

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 negative scope statement implies usage (use this for integrity verification, not editorial evaluation), but there is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as project_inspect or revision_compare. The agent must infer the call context.

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