lc_validate_hive_record

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'without saving it' but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, return behavior on success/failure, or whether it modifies any state. With 12 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loading purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (12 parameters), it is too minimal and lacks structured detail. It is concise but under-specified.

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 description is severely incomplete for the complexity: no explanation of validation process, return format, error handling, prerequisites, or relation to other Hive tools. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter meaning. Required fields like oid, hive_name, key, and data are unexplained. With 12 parameters, the lack of parameter info is a critical gap.

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 the action 'validate' and the resource 'Hive record', and distinguishes it from siblings like lc_get_hive_record (retrieve) and lc_preview_set_hive_record (preview save). However, it does not clarify what 'validate' entails (e.g., schema check, business rules).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are other validation tools (e.g., lc_validate_replay_rule) and preview tools that also don't save, but the description offers no context for selection.

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