Validate a node configuration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that minimal mode respects displayOptions.show/hide, and full mode adds warnings for unknown parameters/type mismatches. It does not mention return format, side effects, or error behavior, which would be useful for a validation tool.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the purpose and then elaborate on modes. No wasted words; the technical detail about displayOptions is relevant but concise.

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 description covers the tool's core behavior and modes. Since there is no output schema, it would be stronger if it mentioned the return format (e.g., list of errors/warnings), but it is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool.

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%; the description adds meaning to the 'mode' parameter by explaining the difference between minimal and full, and contextualizes 'config' as the node's parameters object. However, 'nodeType' is not explicitly explained, leaving some inference required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a node's parameters against its schema'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_workflow. It also explains two modes, giving a concrete sense of what the tool evaluates.

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 makes it clear this is for validating a single node's configuration, not a whole workflow (contrast with validate_workflow). It explains when to use minimal vs full mode, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.

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