validate_rewrite_script_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 the important behavioral trait — 'It does not write anything' — and that validation mirrors iOS-side manifest, module-path, and size rules. However, it says nothing about what a failure produces (error list, throw, partial pass), which matters most 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 tight sentences with no filler, and the read-only guarantee is front-loaded as the second clause where it is easy to see. Nothing is wasted, though there is little content to structure.

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?

For a nested-object, two-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and side effects but omits the one thing an agent most needs: what the validation returns on success or failure. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% for the two required params, so per the rubric the description should compensate. It partially does by naming the categories checked (manifest, module paths, sizes), but gives no guidance on the shape of `modules` vs the manifest's `modules` allowlist, which is a real ambiguity in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (validates) and a specific resource (an ESM rewrite package), and adds that it does not write anything, which separates it from persistence siblings like upsert_rewrite_script. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-twin validate_module_package, leaving that to inference, but the resource scope is otherwise 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?

The phrase 'the same iOS-side ... rules used before persistence' implies this is a pre-flight dry run prior to installing/upserting a package, but it never states when to call this instead of validate_module_package or upsert_rewrite_script. Usage must be inferred from context rather than read.

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