validate_migration_file

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. Lists comprehensive validation checks including strict mode behavior. Notes that it returns a detailed error report per row, implying read-only operation. Lacks explicit mention of authorization requirements or side effects, but given the context, it is transparent enough.

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?

Concise, bulleted list with sentences that each add value. Front-loaded with purpose, then lists validation categories. No redundant or vague statements.

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 has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary function and validation details. Missing explanation for optional authentication/configuration parameters, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand its role.

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 50%; description adds meaning for 'entity' and 'file_content' by linking to validation checks. However, optional parameters (data_center, auth_user_id, auth_password) are not explained beyond schema, leaving their purpose unclear.

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?

Clearly states it validates CSV migration files and lists specific validation categories (headers, key fields, data types, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'validate_import_template' and 'audit_employee_data' by specifying 'deep validation' for migration/import CSV files.

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?

Implicitly indicates use for validating migration CSV files before import, but does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives or when not to use. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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