validate_preflight_config

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the leading 'READ-ONLY' merely restates readOnlyHint. The added value is the description of what validation reports (unknown rule ids, unknown options, out-of-range values), which is useful but modest. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The critical READ-ONLY safety flag is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates what the validation surfaces (unknown rule ids, options, out-of-range values). Slightly redundant with annotations but well-structured and brief.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only validation tool, this is nearly complete: purpose, scope, safety, and output dimensions are all covered. No output schema exists, but the description names the three classes of findings an agent can expect, which is sufficient for a config-validator of this simplicity.

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 100%; the schema already documents config_path as an absolute or relative path to an existing file. The description adds only the contextual hint that the path points to a configuration file, which aligns with but does not materially extend the schema. 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?

Describes a specific verb (validate) applied to a specific resource (rules configuration file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like preflight_demo, preflight_files, and preflight_instantly_campaign by explicitly stating it does not run checks, and from list_preflight_rules/explain_preflight_rule by focusing on config validation rather than rule discovery. An agent can pick it apart from siblings without opening the 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?

Provides a clear context: validate a configuration file before executing checks. The phrase 'without running any checks' implicitly marks off the preflight_* siblings that do execute campaigns, giving a when-not signal. It does not name alternatives explicitly or give exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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