validate_erd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({ valid, errors }), which is useful behavioral information given no output schema. However, it does not state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., modifies anything) or requires specific permissions, leaving ambiguity 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core function and return value. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, well-documented schema), the description provides the essential return format and purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not address how this validation differs from sibling validation tools. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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 input schema already thoroughly explains the 'source' parameter, including the two accepted forms (local file or server ERD id). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 project structure and referential integrity, using the specific verb 'validates' and identifying the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lint_erd, which also likely performs validation, but it adds specificity by mentioning referential integrity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lint_erd, check_naming, or check_db_drift. The description only states what it does without any context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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