Validate Topology Contribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that required keys are checked, but says nothing about failure behavior (error vs. boolean), which keys are required, or whether unknown keys are rejected. For a validator with no output schema, this leaves the most important behavioral question unanswered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the tool's role in the topology workflow.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations about return values, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition omits what the check returns, how failures surface, and which keys are required. An agent could call it but could not interpret or act on the result without trial and error.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It calls the input a 'JSON object' while the schema types 'payload' as a string, without clarifying that the string should contain serialized JSON or what shape that JSON must have. This is a meaningful ambiguity for the only parameter.

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 ('Check') and resource ('a contribution JSON object') plus the nature of the check ('has the required keys'), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling ingest_topology_contribution. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the validation's role in the ingest pipeline.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of the relationship to ingest_topology_contribution (validate before ingest?), and no note on whether validation is mandatory or advisory. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name.

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