Validate Account Map

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it can optionally check live accounts via check_remote. However, it does not explain what validation entails (e.g., structural checks, account existence, connectivity) or what happens on failure. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate because the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Validate an account-map JSON object or the configured account-map.json file'). No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the validation result looks like (e.g., errors, success message). It also does not mention validation criteria (e.g., required fields, account existence checks). Given the complexity of validating an account map against live accounts, this omission leaves the agent needing to infer behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains check_remote ('optionally checking live SimpleFIN and Firefly accounts') but only vaguely hints at account_map ('account-map JSON object'). The type and expected structure of account_map are not clarified. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but is not thorough enough for a high score.

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 tool validates an account-map JSON object or file, and optionally checks live SimpleFIN and Firefly accounts. It distinguishes from sibling tools like setup_suggest_account_map (which suggests mappings) and setup_save_account_map (which saves). However, it does not explicitly differentiate among other validate-type tools, and the specific meaning of 'validate' is somewhat vague.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a configured account map first, or that this should be used before saving. Sibling tools like setup_save_account_map suggest a workflow, but no comparison is given.

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