validate_manifest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool does not apply the manifest, implying no side effects. It also clarifies that migration_sql is not executed. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or any authentication/rate limit details. The information provided is good but could be slightly more explicit.

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, perfectly concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance and clarifications. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does not mention return values, but for a validation tool the output can be inferred. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy. The guidance on migration_sql and deploy manifest boundaries adds completeness. Minor gap: no mention of what the validation result looks like.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds meaning by explaining that manifest is the auth/expose manifest used by manifest.json, database.expose, and apply_expose, and that migration_sql is only reference context. This adds value beyond the schema 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 clearly states the tool validates an auth/expose manifest without applying it. It specifies the resource (auth/expose manifest) and the action (validate), and distinguishes it from deploy-manifest validation. This gives a specific verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (auth/expose manifest validation) and when not to (deploy manifest validation, advising to use deploy planning/dry-run surfaces instead). It also clarifies that migration_sql is only reference context and not executed, preventing misuse.

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