validate_story_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions validation but does not describe what happens during validation (e.g., returns errors, success status), whether it's read-only or has side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency, leaving the agent with insufficient information about the tool's 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides key usage details. There is no wasted text, and both sentences earn their place by adding essential information. It is concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and two parameters but misses details on 'component_name' and 'space_id', behavioral traits, and output expectations. For a validation tool with multiple inputs and no structured guidance, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some semantics by explaining that 'story_id' is used 'to fetch' and 'story_content' can be provided 'directly,' which clarifies the purpose of two parameters. However, it does not mention 'component_name' (the only required parameter) or 'space_id', leaving half of the parameters undocumented. The description partially compensates but does not fully address 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validates a story's content against a component schema.' It specifies the verb ('validates'), resource ('story's content'), and target ('component schema'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_story_versions' or 'debug_story_access', which might involve similar content analysis, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Either provide story_id (to fetch) or story_content directly,' which indicates the two primary ways to use the tool. However, it does not specify when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'compare_story_versions' for validation-like checks) or any prerequisites (e.g., requiring a valid component schema). The guidance is functional but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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