validate_automation

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

Description adds behavior beyond annotations: lists what it checks (schema, expressions, naming), file types, and that it returns warnings alongside errors. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. No contradictions.

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-sentence paragraph is fairly concise and front-loaded with main purpose. Could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for checks), but no unnecessary information.

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, but description explains return values (warnings and errors). Covers main use cases. Could mention if validation is synchronous or requires workspace context, but overall complete for a validation 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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining preference for path over automation, and mentions optional strict mode. However, validateExpressions parameter is not mentioned in description.

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?

Description clearly states 'Validate Prisme.ai automation(s)' with specific checks (schema compliance, expression syntax, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_automation or create_automation.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: accepts file path, folder, or automation object. Mentions preference for path over automation object. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools for execution.

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