validate_agent_schemas

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations, specifying what is verified (api_config, db_config) and what kind of result is produced (valid schemas, invalid schemas, warnings), which helps the agent anticipate outcomes.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second specifies scope, and the third summarizes outputs and use case. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only validation tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the validated agent identifier, lists the two checked config areas, and summarizes the return categories. There is no output schema, so a slightly more structured description of the returned valid/invalid/warnings shape would be ideal, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter agent_id is already described as 'UUID do agente a validar'. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Valida todos os schemas de um agente' and enumerates exactly what is checked (api_config endpoints/auth, db_config connection/query_template). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like validate_schema_data, which targets schema data validation rather than the agent's overall configuration schemas.

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 supplies a clear usage context: 'útil antes de publicar o agente' — telling the agent when this validation is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for routing.

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