validate_story

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only that it validates, without clarifying side effects, return format, or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a validation tool that might have mutating or blocking behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It immediately states the verb and object, making it appropriately front-loaded and free of unnecessary words.

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?

Despite the simple schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to use effectively. It does not explain what validation returns, how it relates to other story tools, or whether it modifies state. This could lead to incorrect invocation expectations.

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 description does not mention 'story_id' or 'mode'. The required 'story_id' is left uninterpretable beyond its name, and 'mode' with const 'static' is entirely unexplained. The description offers no additional meaning than the schema already provides.

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 the action 'Validate' and the resource 'Supabase Story content structure and identity'. It distinguishes from siblings like save_story_content and get_story_context by focusing on validation, which is a distinct operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or scenarios where validation applies. The description merely states what it does without explaining when it should be called.

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