hcl_validate_plan

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower; the description still adds real value with its default structural requirement (connected declared wired topology) and its explicit limits ('does not prove firmware support, deployment or actual network connectivity'). The Comware-vs-.net port key naming rule is also behaviorally important, since a wrong key silently changes validation outcomes. It falls short of a 5 only because the failure/error behavior and what specifically gets rejected are unstated.

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?

It is short, but the phrasing is awkward and the final sentence drops its subject ('configuration checks individual intents...'), so the reader must infer that 'configuration' is the enum value. The most important behavior — the default topology requirement — is present but buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety caveats about what validation does not prove are covered. Against a 0%-described, deeply nested plan schema, though, the definition leaves an agent without enough guidance to construct a valid plan reliably; the interface naming hint is the only concrete input synthesis help.

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%, and the 'plan' parameter is an enormous nested structure (devices, links, addresses, services, subinterfaces, etc.) with no field-level documentation anywhere — the description says nothing about how to populate it. It does decode the validation_level enum by describing both modes, which is genuine added meaning, but that only covers one of two parameters and leaves the dominant one unexplained.

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 verb 'validate' and the object 'intent/plan' are present, so an agent can tell this checks a topology plan. But 'validate intent' is vague jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings like hcl_explain_plan, hcl_estimate_plan, hcl_fix_plan, or hcl_plan_topology. The reader knows roughly what it does but not how it differs from its neighbors.

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 contrast between the two validation levels ('by default require a connected declared wired topology' vs. 'configuration checks individual intents without requiring one wired component') does imply when each mode applies. There is no guidance at all on when to choose this tool over hcl_explain_plan, hcl_estimate_plan, or hcl_fix_plan, which is the harder selection decision.

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