validate_write

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that validation checks against optional fields_get metadata, but does not explain behavior on failure, return format, or side effects. With annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, missing key details. Still, structure is clean.

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 9 parameters, 0% coverage, and an output schema (unreferenced), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a 'standard write payload', how fields_metadata is used, or what the validation result looks like. Essential context for a validation tool is missing.

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 0%, yet the description provides no meaning for any of the 9 parameters (e.g., model, operation, values). It only mentions 'standard write payload' and 'fields_get metadata', leaving the agent guessing about parameter roles.

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 a write payload against fields_get metadata, using a specific verb (validate) and resource (write payload), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'preview_write' and 'execute_approved_write'.

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 like preview_write or execute_approved_write. The description lacks context on prerequisites, when validation is needed, or when to skip it.

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