contentrain_validate

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that fix:true mutates .contentrain/ files, enumerating the exact structural issues it fixes, and warning the agent not to manually edit those files. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then details fix behavior. The second sentence is long and dense, but each clause conveys meaningful information. It is appropriately sized for a tool with mutation and validation behavior.

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 description covers the tool's validation scope, fix behavior, and manual-editing warning, and even notes that backfilled title_fields are reported as notices. It lacks an explicit return/output description and sibling routing guidance, but given the annotations and schema coverage, it is mostly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the fix:true behavior and adds the manual-edit warning, but largely repeats what the schema says rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Validate project content against model schemas' and lists concrete detection categories. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like contentrain_doctor or contentrain_scan, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a conditional usage cue ('If fix:true') but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as contentrain_scan, contentrain_doctor, or contentrain_reconcile. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer placement among sibling tools.

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