validate_manifest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not execute migration_sql and that it checks authorization manifest. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., validation errors or success), which would enhance transparency for a validation tool.

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds essential limitations and alternatives. Every phrase earns its place.

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 the tool has 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's scope, its relationship to deploy manifest, and the behavior of each parameter. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use it correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds context beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'manifest' is specifically auth/expose (not deploy), that 'migration_sql' is reference-only and not executed, and that 'project_id' is optional for live-schema validation. This adds value to 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 states it 'validates an auth/expose manifest without applying it' and explicitly distinguishes from 'deploy-manifest validation'. The verb 'validate' with the specific resource 'auth/expose manifest' is precise and differentiated from siblings like 'deploy' or 'apply_expose'.

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?

It clearly says 'use deploy planning/dry-run surfaces for deploy manifest questions', providing a direct alternative. It also notes that migration_sql is optional and only for reference, not executed, which guides when to include it.

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