dancemoves_validate_page_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety framing is partly covered; the description adds that no browser is mounted, which meaningfully tells the agent this is a fast, side-effect-free check rather than a render. It says nothing about what happens on invalid config (throw vs. structured error list) or whether normalization mutates anything downstream.

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 zero filler; the constraint clause is placed where it matters. It is arguably too terse for a tool whose sole argument is an opaque nested object, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and `config` is an untyped nested object, so the description is the only place the required config shape could be conveyed — and it says nothing about which keys are expected (page? bpm? beats?). An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side leaves a real gap for a non-trivial nested payload.

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, `arguments.config`, and the description does not describe its expected shape at all.

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 specific verbs (validate, normalize) and a specific resource (page/beat configuration), plus a scoping note that it talks to the installed DanceMoves API. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling validators (dancemoves_validate_motion_capture, dancemoves_validate_timing_file, react_timeline_sequence_validate_beat_clock), so an agent must infer the taxonomy.

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 browser mount" implies this is the headless/pre-flight path for checking a page or beat config, which hints at when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over the sibling validators or over the react_timeline_sequence_beat_grid/sample tools, and no prerequisites are given.

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