validate_library_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the validation is read-only, what a successful or failed validation returns, whether the component must already exist, or if there are any side effects. The word 'validate' implies a check, but the specifics are missing.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns its place by clearly naming the subject and scope of validation.

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 tool with 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral expectations. The output schema exists so return values are covered, but the input side is under-specified.

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. It does not explain how the parameters (path, name, stable_id) are used or how they relate to the validation process. The agent is left guessing which identifier is authoritative and whether they are alternatives or required together.

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') with a clear resource ('component') and lists the exact aspects being validated: pins, attached pattern, and pin-to-pad mapping. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as validate_library_pattern and validate_pin_pad_mapping.

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 description implies usage for validating a library component's integrity across pins, pattern, and mapping, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the more targeted validate_library_pattern or validate_pin_pad_mapping, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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