family_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so fairly well: it discloses the input handling (Loads CSV or JSON), the specific checks performed (recipe, mode, key column, duplicate/missing size keys, per-row recipe-door value), that problems are localized to row+column, and the return shape {ok, problems}. It omits environment/auth or performance traits, but for a validation tool this is strong disclosure.

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 core content (what is validated, what is checked, and the return shape) is front-loaded and each claim earns its place. Minor noise such as the internal ticket reference '(issue #138, B1)' adds no value to an agent but does not undermine the structure.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the domain model, the validation checks, and the return contract ({ok, problems}), which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It is space-efficient and covers the essentials an agent needs.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'table' has no schema description, so the description must compensate — it does, stating the parameter is a path to the family table and the accepted formats (.csv or .json). That exceeds the bare type:string in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (a variant-family design table), then concretely defines that resource as a row x column table where row = variant keyed by size designator and column = recipe parameter / feature-flag / material. Among many *_validate siblings (recipe_validate, feature_validate, items_validate, project_validate), the variant-family-table scope makes this tool's domain distinguishable.

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 is implied by the domain description — an agent can infer it is for validating a variant-family design table — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives despite the crowded set of sibling validators. Adequate but leaves selection guidance to inference.

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