validate_manifest

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it does not apply the manifest, migration_sql is not executed, and it checks only the authorization manifest. This gives a good understanding of side effects and scope.

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?

Three sentences with the primary action first, then scope clarification, then an explicit contrast to deploy validation. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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 sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and constraints. It doesn't detail return values, but for a validation tool the core functionality is well covered.

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%, and the description adds context beyond schema labels: manifest is auth/expose (not deploy), migration_sql is reference only, project_id is optional. This enriches understanding of parameter usage.

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 explicitly states the tool validates an auth/expose manifest without applying it, and distinguishes it from deploy-manifest validation. The verb 'validate' and resource 'auth/expose manifest' are clear.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use (for auth/expose manifest validation) and when not to (for deploy manifest issues), directing users to deploy planning/dry-run surfaces. No exclusions are needed beyond this.

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