clash.config.validate_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool does not write, which is key for safety. It lists the checks performed (YAML, schema, fingerprints, risk). It does not mention error handling, return format, or required permissions, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and checks, second states non-write nature. No extraneous words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Highly concise and structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: what it validates and that it's read-only. It lacks details on return values (e.g., validation result format) but is mostly complete for a validation tool.

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?

Only one parameter (workspaceId) with schema coverage 100%. The description adds that the ID comes from create_workspace, which provides context. However, no additional parameter-specific details are given, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates a workspace's modified config, listing specific checks (YAML syntax, schema, fingerprint consistency, risk classification) and explicitly saying it does not write. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify or preview changes (e.g., clash.config.apply_transaction, clash.config.preview_change).

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 config before applying, and the 'Does NOT write' clause indicates safety. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like clash.config.audit or clash.config.preview_change, which could provide similar checks.

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