Validate VIPMP request body

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

The description elaborates on the tool's behavior (validation checks, scope) beyond the annotations, which already indicate it is read-only and idempotent. It adds detail on what is flagged, but does not specify the return format. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates this 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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence, followed by a paragraph detailing checks, a scope note, parameter definitions, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters with format, scope, and example. With an output schema present, the lack of explicit return value description is acceptable. However, it could mention that validation occurs against the indexed schema for the specified endpoint.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the minimal schema: it specifies the endpoint format as 'METHOD /path' with an example, and describes body_json as 'the request body to check, as a JSON string'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates.

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 it validates a JSON request body against a VIPMP schema, specifying the exact checks performed (type, required-ness, constraints, unknown fields, deprecated usage). It also distinguishes its scope (top-level only) and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like describe_vipmp_endpoint or get_vipmp_schema.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (before sending a request) and what it does not cover (nested objects), directing users to get_vipmp_schema for deeper validation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the nested case.

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