Validates a draft declaration by generating and checking its XML output, then marks it as validated on success.
Validate a draft declaration by generating and checking the XML output. Transitions the declaration to "validated" status if successful.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Declaration UUID to validate | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the actual side effect: the declaration transitions to 'validated' status on success. This is meaningful for a mutating tool (readOnlyHint=false) that is idempotent and non-destructive. It does not say what happens on failure (returned errors vs. exception) or whether the generated XML persists, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Two compact sentences with the action and its outcome front-loaded. No filler or restated field names.
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?
For a two-parameter mutation with annotations already covering safety and idempotency and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but it leaves the failure/validation-error behavior unexplained, which an agent needs to interpret a 'failed validation' outcome correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry descriptions, so the schema already explains id and the companyId env-override. The description adds only the implicit constraint that the id should reference a draft; baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('draft declaration') plus the mechanism (generating and checking XML output). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named siblings declaration_validate_xml or declaration_build, so an agent must infer the difference.
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 word 'draft' implies this applies only to draft declarations and the success path is stated, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to the alternative tools (declaration_validate_xml, declarations_submit) for related checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.