Validate Platform Publish Package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds meaningful extra context: it is local-only, never uploads, never changes Premiere, and returns normalized hashtags and character counts. It also qualifies the limits as 'approximate 2026' limits, which is honest about the reference data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose and immediately follow with what is returned and the safety profile. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

With a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description fills the remaining gap: the semantic of 'approximate 2026 publish limits' and the local-only guarantee. An agent has enough context to select and call this tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 14 parameters, so the schema already carries the semantic burden. The description names some of the validated fields (title, description, hashtags, content flags) but adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific action and object: validate a rendered file plus title, description, hashtags, and content flags against a platform's publish limits. It also clarifies the output (violations, warnings, normalized hashtags, character counts) and distinguishes itself from nearby validation tools by focusing on publish-limit compliance and metadata rather than export presets or media delivery.

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 gives a clear context for use: checking rendered output and metadata against one platform's approximate 2026 publish limits. It also provides an explicit exclusion with 'local-only; never uploads or changes Premiere,' so the agent knows it is safe to call and not a side-effecting operation. It stops short of naming alternative validation tools, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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