bw_adso_validate_info_area

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Validate that an InfoArea exists' conveys that this is a read-only existence check and 'pre-create' implies no mutation, which is useful. It does not disclose return shape, failure behavior, or connection prerequisites, but the validation/pre-create wording covers the core behavioral profile.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the alternative-routing note is tightly expressed.

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 one-parameter existence check with no output schema, this description gives the agent what it needs: the operation, the call context, and the alternative for broader workflows. Only explicit return/error semantics are missing, which is minor for a validation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description lets an agent infer that 'name' refers to the InfoArea to validate. That adds meaning beyond the raw string type, though it does not specify naming conventions or expected format.

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, 'Validate that an InfoArea exists', and scopes it as a pre-create check for ADSO. It also names the sibling for the general workflow, so an agent can distinguish this tool from bw_area_validate_exists without opening schemas.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer bw_area_validate_exists for InfoArea workflows', naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also frames this tool's intended context as a pre-create check for ADSO, leaving no ambiguity about when to use it.

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