validate_module_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is non-persisting and that validation uses the iOS validator, which is real behavioral content. But it says nothing about what a failed validation looks like, whether the package is executed or merely parsed, or any permissions needed.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the operation and its key scoping constraint (non-persisting) both front-loaded before any detail.

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?

A single-parameter validate tool with a fully described schema and no output schema; the description covers the operation, the input expectation, and the non-persisting guarantee, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Further elaboration was not required.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents package_json as the complete JSON package with manifest and sources. The description adds no format, size, or content constraints beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Validates') plus specific resource ('a Module package'), and the trailing clause 'without persisting it' separates it from mutation siblings like upsert_module and install_module. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with validate_rewrite_script_package, its closest structural sibling.

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 phrase 'without persisting it' implies the intended use case (dry-run check before upsert_module/install_module), but no sentence states when to call this instead of upsert_module, install_module, or inspect_module, and no prerequisites are given.

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