Family Validate

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses what the tool loads (CSV or JSON), what it checks (recipe, mode, key column, duplicate/missing size keys, per-row recipe-door values), how problems are reported (row+column), and the return shape ({ok, problems}). This gives the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 dense but efficient, leading with the purpose and then covering input format, validation checks, error reporting, and return value. The internal issue reference '#138, B1' is minor noise, but it does not seriously hurt readability.

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 one-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description covers input format, validation scope, error granularity, and return structure. It could go slightly deeper on the structure of the 'problems' list, but it is adequate for confident invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that 'table' is a path to the family table and accepts .csv or .json. It adds the key semantic detail that the parameter points to a file path, which is absent from 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?

The description states a specific action ('Validate a variant-family design table'), identifies the object (a row x column table with rows keyed by size designator), and details the exact validation checks. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like family_materialize or recipe_validate.

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 clearly implies this tool is for validating variant-family design tables, and the readOnlyHint reinforces it as a check rather than a mutation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when this should be preferred over related validators like recipe_validate, items_validate, or feature_validate.

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