bw_area_validate_exists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys a non-mutating validation operation, but it does not state the return contract, error behavior, or explicitly confirm the tool is read-only. The core behavior is present, but the details are thin.

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 no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then provides a useful alternative-preference note. The description is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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, the description is largely complete: it identifies the object type and the preferred sibling. The only minor gap is not specifying what the validation returns or how failure is signaled.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'name' parameter with 100% coverage, including its type and meaning as the InfoArea technical name. The description adds no additional parameter detail, but none is needed because the schema is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Validate that an InfoArea exists (AREA).' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling bw_adso_validate_info_area by explicitly recommending this tool over it, making the tool's scope immediately 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 explicitly tells the agent to prefer this tool over bw_adso_validate_info_area, which is a clear routing instruction against a specific alternative. For a single-purpose existence-validation tool, this is sufficient usage guidance.

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