Validate QuokkaPix image recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that this is a non-destructive, safe operation ('preflight check only, does not open browser or process files'). However, it does not detail the validation error format, side effects, or exact behavior on invalid input. Given no annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but not exhaustive.

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 only, both front-loaded with key information. No redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose and the second provides usage context and differentiation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's role in the workflow (validate before process_images). It could be improved by hinting at the return value (e.g., success/failure), but that is not required since there is no output schema. Score 4 reflects minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value by listing key fields it validates (id, applySettings.mode/tool, steps, requires.maxFiles), but the schema already covers these. No additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Score 3 per guidelines.

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 the specific verb 'Validate' and the resource 'custom QuokkaPix recipe'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like process_images by stating it is a preflight check that does not process files. It lists the exact fields validated (id, applySettings.mode/tool, steps, requires.maxFiles), making the purpose clear and distinct.

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 states when to use: 'when an agent generated its own recipe JSON and needs to confirm...' and implies when not to use (e.g., for known-good recipes). It clarifies it is a preflight check only and does not open a browser or process files, which helps the agent decide when to call it vs. process_images.

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