gatekeeper_nginx_validate

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

The description explicitly says the tool returns a config preview 'without applying changes,' but the annotation readOnlyHint=false marks the tool as non-read-only. This is a direct contradiction between the description's behavioral claim and the declared annotation, so the description cannot be trusted as a behavioral guide.

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. 'Wizard helper' adds useful context, and every clause contributes either to what the tool does or to what it does not do.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, output, and non-mutation, but it leaves the meaning of the required 'slug' parameter unexplained and omits any error or validation-behavior details. Combined with the annotation contradiction, the definition is not fully actionable.

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 one required parameter, 'slug', with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'slug' refers to or how it relates to the nginx enable inputs. The description provides only a vague connection to 'nginx enable inputs' but leaves the required parameter semantically underdocumented.

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 names a specific action ('validate'), a specific resource ('nginx enable inputs'), and the output ('config preview'), while also stating that no changes are applied. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool gatekeeper_nginx_enable, which applies changes.

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?

The phrase 'Wizard helper' plus 'validate nginx enable inputs' communicates that this is a preflight or preview step before enabling nginx. It gives clear context for when to call it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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