Validate project

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already available, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Nothing is saved', the precedence rule that structurally invalid documents are rejected before producing the report, the shape of each finding (severity, stable code, message, rack/placement ids), and how the interactive app may later group or dismiss findings. These go well beyond what the annotations convey and align with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Four sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then failure precedence, then output shape, then side-effect disclosure. No sentence is filler or redundant with the annotations or schema, and the whole description is proportionate to the tool's complexity.

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 has no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the finding format. It covers validation scope, rejection behavior, persistence, and downstream app behavior. The only gap is that with 0 required parameters it never clarifies what happens if both 'ref' and 'project' are omitted, or that they are alternative/possibly mutually exclusive inputs.

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; each parameter (org, ref, project) is already well documented in the schema, including the inline-vs-saved distinction and defaults. The description adds context about what validation produces but no parameter-level nuance beyond the schema, so it does not push above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run the current Railyard server-side soft validation over a project') and enumerates the exact kinds of findings (rack placement/site findings, power-model problems). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_project (read vs. validate) and check_project_name (name-only check vs. full soft validation).

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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource, and the schema notes that 'project' supports drafts before saving, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use vs. sibling tools like check_project_name or get_project, nor any when-not-to-use guidance. It meets the 'implied usage' bar but adds no routing or exclusion context.

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