okf_validate_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what is validated (frontmatter and attachment references) which gives some transparency about scope, but it doesn't disclose what constitutes a validation failure, whether this is read-only, or what the output looks like. An output schema exists which may help, but the description alone adds limited behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the action verb and immediately states the target and 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?

For a single-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but thin. It doesn't explain what validation results look like, what 'valid' means in this context, or how it relates to okf_rebuild_bundle. With an output schema present, return-value details aren't mandatory, but more context on validation criteria and failure semantics would improve completeness.

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 there's only one parameter (account_id). The description mentions 'one account' which maps to the single account_id parameter, providing minor contextual meaning. However, the description doesn't clarify what account_id represents (email account? OKF account?) or how to obtain it, leaving ambiguity the schema doesn't resolve.

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 states a specific action ('Validate') on a specific resource ('OKF frontmatter and attachment references') scoped to 'one account'. It's a single sentence with a specific verb and target, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the sibling okf_rebuild_bundle which shares the OKF concern.

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 implies a validation use-case but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include okf_rebuild_bundle (which likely rebuilds what validate checks), some guidance differentiating validation from rebuilding would have been helpful.

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