validate_draft

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden, and it does: offline rules R01-R16 always run, live rules L01-L04 require network and only run with dry_run=False, and dry_run=True does not touch the file. The main unknown is what happens if dry_run=False, but the key side-effect and network dependencies are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then arguments, with no fluff. There is slight redundancy between the live-rules paragraph and the dry_run argument explanation, but it does not hurt readability.

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?

Invocation is well specified, but there is no output schema and the description never says what validate_draft returns or how the agent should interpret the result. Because no annotations or output schema exist, this is a meaningful gap.

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%, and the description fully compensates: path is explained as a YAML file path, and dry_run is described as controlling offline-only vs live execution, including the default and side-effect. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Run the rule set against a draft,' which makes the tool's validation role clear and distinguishes it from sibling build/create/submit tools. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it stops short of 5.

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?

It gives concrete conditions for when offline-only vs live validation runs, directly explaining how dry_run changes execution. It omits an explicit 'use before submitting' statement and does not name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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