validate_process_parameters

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool performs validation, calculations, and provides suggestions. However, it does not clarify read-only nature, side effects, required permissions, or response format. For a validation tool, the disclosed behavior is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the main purpose, the second lists specific actions. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff. It is succinct and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains validation logic but leaves ambiguity (e.g., 'calculates cooling time' while cooling_time_s is an input; does it override or compute recommended?). It does not specify return format, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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?

The input schema already describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by indicating which parameters are used for specific checks (e.g., melt_temp_C, mold_temp_C for temperature checks; injection_speed_mm_s for shear rate estimation; wall_thickness_mm and cooling_time_s for cooling time calculation), going beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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?

The description specifies the tool's primary function: validating injection molding process parameters against a material processing window. It lists specific checks (melt/mold temperature, shear rate estimation, cooling time calculation, flagging out-of-range values with suggestions), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on comparison, checklist generation, simulation specs, property retrieval, or knowledge queries.

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 implicitly suggests use when validating process parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling tools helps, but direct guidance is lacking.

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