ipt_validate_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important trait: validation results are not enforced by the IPT, so the tool is advisory rather than blocking. 'Pre-flight check' also implies read-only inspection, though the description does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom, auth needs, or output format. The non-blocking disclosure adds genuine value beyond the tool name.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical caveat. No filler words; every clause earns its place, including the specific list of validation checks and the IPT non-blocking note.

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 simple 2-parameter validation tool, the description covers what the tool checks and its non-blocking nature. It does not describe the return payload or error behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so an agent must infer what a validation result looks like. Still, the essential context for invoking with a shortname and interpreting the advisory role is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on shortname or metadataOnly; it only references general validation categories. The schema already documents both parameters adequately, so no compensation is needed.

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 opens with 'Pre-flight check before publishing', which is a specific verb (validate) and resource (resource) with clear intent. It enumerates concrete check categories (invalid metadata per section, missing/unanalysed sources, missing mappings, unmapped required terms), distinguishing it from siblings like ipt_publish or validate_tsv. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Pre-flight check before publishing' explicitly situates this tool in the workflow, telling the agent to run it prior to ipt_publish. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'before publishing' framing provides enough context for when to invoke it. The caveat 'the IPT itself does NOT block these' also helps the agent understand this is an advisory check, not a gate.

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