Validate Proposed Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail by explicitly confirming the tool does not install or activate, but it does not describe the validation result, error behavior, or whether it performs full semantic validation versus syntax-only validation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the object, and the key behavioral constraint in ten words, earning every word's place.

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?

For a low-complexity, one-parameter, read-only validation tool, the description plus annotations are largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The only meaningful omission is an explicit description of the return value or validation outcome, which is somewhat mitigated by the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'toml' parameter, so the description must carry meaning. It does so by specifying the parameter should contain a 'complete proposed Crab-hole TOML' — adding the 'complete' and 'proposed' qualifiers that are not present in the schema. It could add more on formatting expectations, but the single simple parameter is adequately characterized.

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 ('validate') with a clear resource ('complete proposed Crab-hole TOML') and immediately scopes the operation as 'without installing or activating it'. This distinguishes it from validating an active/installed configuration and from sibling tools like validate_crab_hole.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent has a proposed TOML and wants to validate it before applying it. It also implies exclusion of install/activate behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as validate_crab_hole or get_crab_hole_config, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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