validate_object_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the output shape ('list of violations with rule references and suggestions') and the governing standard. It does not state that the tool is purely read-only/non-mutating, nor whether it fails or returns empty on a valid name, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and the standard front-loaded and the return value second. Nothing needs to be cut.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's summary of return values is valuable and necessary. But for a validator with an enum-rich, multi-type parameter and a near-identical sibling, the description omits the distinction from validate_sql_object and omits how to obtain the referenced rules via get_rules.

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%, so the schema already documents name, context, and the 12-value object_type enum; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, such as name-length limits or which object types are actually covered.

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 resource (SQL object name) plus the standard applied (BSG Institute naming standards) and the return shape. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling validate_sql_object, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between naming validation and broader SQL validation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over validate_sql_object or get_rules, and no explanation of when the optional 'context' parameter should be supplied. The agent gets a capability statement but no routing rules.

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