Validate a drawspec document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key behavior: it reports every violation rather than stopping at the first, and each is located by JSON pointer for single-pass editing. It doesn't state that the operation is non-mutating or describe the shape of an individual violation object, but the behavioral essentials are present.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core question ('would render refuse this, and where'), then return semantics, then timing. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 exists, so the description must cover return values, and it does convey that all violations come back with JSON pointer locations. For a nested-object validator it could go slightly further on the per-violation fields, but an agent has enough to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `document` and `theme` are already documented — including the schema URL and the 36 `kind` values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (validate/answer) and resource (a drawspec document), and frames it precisely against the sibling `render` — it answers whether render would refuse the document and where. An agent can distinguish this from `render` and `kinds` without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to call it before `render` while a document is being written, which names the alternative and the triggering condition. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g., after a clean validation or on already-rendered output), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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