validate_multi_agent_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but only states the tool 'validates'. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, whether it can fail, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a validation tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action word 'Validate'. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary context, which prevents a higher score.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain when to call it, what inputs mean in context, what the result looks like, or how it relates to sibling tools. This is minimal viable at best.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'taskId' and 'approvedProtectedChanges' are left entirely to the agent to infer from their names. The description mentions 'secrets' but doesn't connect them to any parameter, failing to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 clearly states the tool validates 'changed files and secrets' for a 'multi-agent task', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'validate_changed_files' by adding the multi-agent and secrets scope, though it doesn't detail what 'validate' entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_changed_files' or 'finalize_multi_agent_edit'. No context is provided for how it fits into the multi-agent edit workflow, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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