document_validate

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not openWorld), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: which doc types validate, that other types return a 'skipped' report with a reason, a filesystem side effect (unknown tags appended to a discovery log with EDA_DISCOVERY_LOG override), and the distinction between known-invalid samples vs unknown tags. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then scoped behavior, then return shape — a logical ordering. It is somewhat dense (three short paragraphs), but each block carries real information (supported types, logging side effect, report structure) rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it spells out the returned JSON report shape (docType, lineCount, knownCount, unknownTagCount, invalidCount, samples), validation coverage, and the logging side effect. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 of 3 applies. The description restates the filePath-vs-default-document behavior, but this is already documented in the schema, so it adds little meaning beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Validate a document's source against the Zod-backed EasyEDA schema.' It further scopes the tool by naming exactly which document types are validated (Schematic/PCB) and that others are skipped. It never explicitly name-checks a sibling for contrast, but the validation function is unambiguous against the get/set/save/load siblings.

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?

It gives useful operational guidance — 'Runs on the currently active document by default, or on a local file if filePath is provided' — which tells the agent how to invoke it. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to sibling tools (e.g., document_get_source) and no prerequisites, leaving the choice of this tool over alternatives to inference.

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