validate_schema_data

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: no persistence (dry-run), identical validation to create/update_schema, and the return categories 'erros, warnings e infos.' This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 compact sentences place the core behavior first, the usage rule second, and the result/contract info last. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and where to find the formal type contract. The schema fills in the remaining parameter details, making it complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described and schema_type having a detailed enum. The description's 'same structure as create_schema' pointer adds a little cross-tool context, but the schema already carries the parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Valida schema_data sem salvar (dry-run)' and anchors the behavior to 'MESMA validação Ajv do create_schema/update_schema.' This clearly distinguishes it as the validation-only counterpart to the create/update schema tools.

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?

It gives an explicit directive: 'Use SEMPRE antes de criar/atualizar schemas para evitar tentativa e erro,' providing a clear when-to-use rule. It does not mention exclusions or alternative validation tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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