Validate env config doc

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint/idempotent, but the description adds what the annotations cannot: each finding carries severity (error/warning/info) with a remediation, and errors block downstream actions while warnings/info only surface. It also describes the specific cross-field rules checked, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loads the action and the call-timing guidance, then the return shape and the enumerated checks. Dense but each clause carries information; the long findings enumeration is justified by the breadth of checks, though a bulleted form would scan faster.

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?

Covers purpose, trigger conditions, parameter requirement, and the full breadth of validation findings with severity semantics. Return values are additionally backed by an output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool is missing.

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 100% for the single env_id parameter, including the UUID-or-nickname resolution chain. The description restates 'env_id (required — env_id UUID or nickname)' without adding syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (stored env-config document at a concrete path), and enumerates the exact checks performed (schema parse plus cross-field sanity). An agent can distinguish it from siblings such as log10x_doctor or log10x_env_diff_vs_envvars without reading either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it: 'after any edit to the env doc (via log10x_dest_set / hand-edit / restore) or pre-flight before downstream tools that need a coherent config', naming concrete downstream consumers (commitment_report, configure_engine, offload-recipe emitters).

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