validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what each validation level actually does—syntax parsing and reference resolution, semantic rules for events/flows/subprocesses/lanes/collaborations, and executable-profile guidance for full. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what the validation entails, without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentence, but it is well-structured with semicolons to separate the levels, and it front-loads the primary action ('Validate the current diagram'). It avoids unnecessary words while conveying all key information. The length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool's levels, and it doesn't repeat what the schema already states.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no required params), the description adequately covers the validation levels and what they involve. An output schema exists, so the return value is documented elsewhere. The description is complete for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool and what to expect from each level, with no missing critical details.

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 covers the 'level' parameter with enum values and a description, but the tool description provides much richer semantics by explaining exactly what each level checks. For example, 'syntax parses XML and resolves references' adds meaning beyond the schema's simple cumulative statement. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the elaboration justifies a 4.

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 verb 'Validate' and the resource 'current diagram', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself by explaining the cumulative levels, which is specific and not redundant with the name. Since sibling tools are all editing/IO operations, this is clearly the validation tool, and the description highlights its unique functionality.

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 description provides clear context on when to use the tool (to validate the current diagram) and explains the different validation levels, implicitly guiding the agent on choosing the appropriate level. It doesn't mention alternatives because there are none among the siblings that serve a similar purpose, so the absence of explicit exclusion is acceptable. The trigger condition is well-defined.

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