gatekeeper_containers_wizard_validate

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description reinforces it with 'without applying changes', which is consistent. It adds the 'normalize' behavior, but does not disclose what normalization entails or what the tool returns on success/failure; the annotation burden is low, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place ('validate', 'normalize', 'without applying changes'). Slight deduction because 'Wizard helper' is a vague category label that could carry more specific context about the wizard stage.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the sole carrier of context, and it leaves notable gaps: it does not explain what 'normalize' produces, what the validation response looks like, or how an agent should interpret results. For a validation step that an agent must invoke correctly within a multi-step wizard, this is a meaningful shortfall.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. However, the description references a 'CreateContainerRequest' that the agent has no way to supply through inputs, creating ambiguity about where the request originates (presumably wizard state). The description names the object being operated on but fails to explain how it is provided.

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 a specific action ('validate and normalize'), a concrete resource ('CreateContainerRequest'), and a key scoping constraint ('without applying changes'). This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like gatekeeper_create_container, so an agent can identify its role in the wizard flow, though the prefix 'Wizard helper' is somewhat generic.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling validation steps (e.g., gatekeeper_containers_wizard_ports_check) or explain its position within the wizard sequence, so the agent must infer intent purely from the name and the single-sentence description.

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