validate_design

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely useful context: it discloses the return shape (totals plus paginated diagnostics) and warns that a plan-ready graph is not proof of rendered correctness, framing the tool's limits.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope and followed by the one caveat that matters. No 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully does describe the return (totals plus paginated diagnostics) and the pagination model. The remaining gap is parameter semantics for cursor/revision/designId, though annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description only obliquely touches two of them ('draft or complete mode' maps to mode, 'or one page' hints at pageId). cursor, revision, and designId semantics remain entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (design session or one page) with a scope qualifier (draft or complete mode). Clear without opening the schema, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_composition, so an agent must guess which validator applies.

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?

Implies usage by naming the two modes and the optional page-level scope, but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no prerequisites, and no guidance on choosing this tool over validate_composition or when draft vs complete is appropriate.

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