eventstream_validate_definition

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It fails to disclose what happens on validation failure, whether it returns error messages, or any side effects.

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 extremely short, containing one line and a docstring. While it is concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it minimally acceptable. Extra sentences could improve clarity without significant bloat.

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 the tool's complexity (validation) and the existence of an output schema, the description should provide at least a high-level overview of what validation entails. It does not address common questions like what happens on success/failure or typical response structure.

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%. The description only notes 'Builder session ID' for session_id, which adds no meaningful value beyond the parameter name. The description fails to explain the purpose or format of the session_id, leaving the agent with no additional context.

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 'Validate the current eventstream definition' which clearly identifies the action (validate) and resource (eventstream definition). It distinguishes from sibling tools like eventstream_create or eventstream_get_definition, though it does not specify what aspects are validated.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where validation is appropriate versus getting the definition or starting it.

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