items_validate

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the domain model (logical item vs file artifact), the exact validation checks, and the return contract (ok is True iff problems is empty). It does not state whether validation is strictly read-only or has any side effects, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then progressively discloses checks, domain model, and return shape. Slightly dense, but each sentence adds information an agent needs for this PLM concept rather than restating the name.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description defines the return object shape and the meaning of ok, and explains the item/file split that an agent needs to interpret results correctly. Only missing permissions/side-effect context.

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 exactly one parameter at 0% schema coverage, and the description compensates by explaining that 'registry' is the path to the items.json sidecar, clarifying both format and expected file.

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 (items.json registry), then enumerates exactly what is checked: schema stamp, record shape, part-number uniqueness, reserved field usage. This lets an agent distinguish it from items_new, items_resolve, and items_check_manifest without opening any schema.

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 name and the check list, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. after items_new or before release), and no routing away from overlapping validators like items_check_manifest or validate_manifest.

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