card_builder_validate_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only validation (checks, returns ok/errors/warnings). It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a validation tool, the described behavior is sufficiently transparent. No contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for checks and return format. No filler words, front-loaded with the key action. Every sentence adds value.

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 purpose, checks performed, and return format. Missing elements include when to use (usage guidelines) and any prerequisites or side effects, but for a simple validation tool with one parameter, it is largely complete. The presence of an implied output schema in the description helps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'config' object, and the description adds context by calling it 'Card Builder config (DocumentData)' and listing internal checks (version, rootId, blocks). However, it does not detail the expected structure or properties of the config object, leaving room for ambiguity. The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but is not fully compensatory.

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 'Lightweight structural validation for a Card Builder config', identifying the specific verb (validate) and resource (Card Builder config). Among siblings like card_builder_create_card or card_builder_update_card, this is the only validation tool, so it distinguishes well.

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 implies usage when you need to validate a config before creating or updating a card, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., other validation tools or simply testing directly). There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned.

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