pc_validate_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the types of checks performed but does not describe the output format (e.g., success/failure, warnings) or side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not confirmed.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It front-loads the key action ('Lint a Partner Center REST call') and lists scenarios without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but is effective.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description should explain the result format (e.g., passes errors, warnings). It also omits details about the `headers` object structure. Given the complexity of parameters and lack of schema descriptions, the description is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only vaguely references 'method, URL, headers, auth'. It does not explain the `authType`, `cloud`, or `headers` parameters in detail, leaving ambiguity for agent invocation.

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 defines the tool as a linter for Partner Center REST calls, listing specific scenarios it checks (wrong method/path, missing headers, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_check_auth or pc_diagnose, which have different focuses.

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 implies usage when validating a REST call against known scenarios but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools provide related but distinct functions, yet no guidance is given on choosing between them.

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