bw_infoobject_validate_exists

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

There are no annotations to carry safety or side-effect information, and the description does not say whether the tool returns a boolean, raises an error when the object does not exist, or prints a status message. Without an output schema, the agent is left guessing about the tool's observable behavior beyond the vague verb 'validate'.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter validation tool, though its brevity leaves informational gaps that are penalized in other dimensions.

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?

Given there is no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently use the result. For a validation tool, the response or failure behavior is essential context, and that is entirely absent.

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 one bare `name` string with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that `name` refers to an InfoObject, which is meaningful, but it does not specify naming conventions, expected format, or whether the name is technical or display name.

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 clearly states the action ('validate') and the resource ('an InfoObject'), and the word 'exists' conveys that this is an existence check rather than a retrieval or creation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like `bw_infoobject_get` or `bw_infoobject_validate_new_name`, so it stops short of full sibling-level distinction.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `bw_infoobject_validate_new_name` or `bw_infoobject_get`. The description only states what it does, not when an agent should choose it over related validation or lookup tools.

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