validate_declaration_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Validate' suggests a read-only operation, but it's unclear whether this triggers side effects, requires a persisted session (via session_status), consumes server resources, or produces a deterministic result. The behavior around expected_version matching/mismatch is not disclosed. For zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely short ('Validate one exact draft version'), which could be interpreted as concise. However, it borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It doesn't front-load any role of the tool's behavior or scope. It's not bloated, but it earns little.

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?

The tool has an output schema and a single required parameter, which slightly reduces the documentation burden. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, multiple sibling tools with overlapping domains, and a ref-based identity model that needs explanation, the description is notably under-specified. The description doesn't explain the role of expected_version, the validation criteria, or the relationship to other draft operations.

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 0%, so the schema only provides type/constraint info for the 'ref' and 'expected_version' parameters, but not semantics. The description name 'expected_version' hints at version comparison, but the description doesn't explain behavior when the current version differs from expected. The nested DeclarationRef's taxpayer_alias, tax_year, and declaration_id are not explained. The 0% coverage means the description should compensate, but it doesn't.

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 says 'Validate one exact draft version' which uses a specific verb (validate) and a resource (draft version), but it's very terse. It doesn't clarify what validation entails (schema checks? business rules?), nor does it distinguish from siblings like read_declaration_draft or prepare_declaration_review. The purpose is clear enough but lacks differentiating detail.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this vs. alternatives. The sibling tools suggest related workflows (reading, mutating, reverting, preparing drafts), but the description gives no hint about when validation is appropriate, whether it's a prerequisite for submission, or how it differs from prepare_declaration_review. Usage context is entirely implied from the name.

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