altium_library_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one behavioral fact — path resolution depends on the ALTIUM_DBLIB environment variable — but leaves the important ambiguity unresolved: what happens when it is not configured, and what a failed validation actually reports.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, so the brevity itself is well managed. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

A tool taking a nested object with zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotations about returns needs the description to carry the weight, and this one does not. Nothing explains the structure of spec or what a validation result looks like.

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?

There is a single required parameter, "spec", typed only as a nested object with 0% schema description coverage; the description adds no meaning about its shape, required fields, or nesting. With a nested object and no documentation anywhere, the agent has essentially nothing to construct the argument from.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Validate") and a resource domain ("DbLib-based circuit"), plus a side effect (path resolution), but "DbLib-based circuit" is opaque and the description never separates this from the sibling altium_validate, which plausibly validates something similar. An agent can guess the general area but not the precise scope.

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 phrase "if configured" hints at an ALTIUM_DBLIB dependency but gives no guidance on when to pick this over altium_validate or altium_library_query. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no stated conditions under which the tool should be skipped.

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