validate_against_live_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only, validateOnly', indicating non-destructive behavior, and describes return values (violations, missing keys, corrected value). Missing details on permissions or side effects, but still strong transparency.

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?

Single sentence covers purpose, behavior, and outputs. Efficient and front-loaded with key information; no extraneous words.

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?

No output schema provided, but description adequately explains returns. Lacks context on what 'live schema' means, prerequisites, or how the corrected value is generated. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is only 33%. Description adds meaning to 'value' as a settings object to validate and mentions outputs that clarify usage. However, 'schemaId' remains undocumented, and 'scope' only has a default in schema. Some added value but not complete.

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 clearly states the verb 'validate', the resource 'settings value against the live schema', and lists key outputs (violations, required-missing keys, corrected value). It distinguishes from siblings like 'validate_settings_object' by emphasizing 'live schema' and 'read-only, validateOnly'.

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?

Implies validation before applying settings, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'validate_settings_object'). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites specified.

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