Validate event page

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds value beyond them: it explains that the tool is a gate before writes (errors block, warnings require acknowledgement) and that supplying `proposedLogic` tests a replacement without staging it — a non-obvious no-mutation path. No return shape or how warnings are surfaced is described, but the output-schema absence makes that a smaller gap.

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?

Three short sentences, each with distinct payload: what is validated, the dry-run option, and the error/warning consequence. Front-loaded with the purpose and 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with zero required params and no output schema, the description omits the key operational detail: which identifiers to supply (mapId/eventId/pageIndex vs troopId/pageIndex vs commonEventId) and how validation results are reported back. It covers the purpose and the write-gating semantics well, but an agent could still assemble an invalid parameter set without guidance.

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 coverage is 71%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning (mapId, eventId, troopId, pageIndex including ZERO-based indexing). The description adds a genuine gloss for `proposedLogic` (IR form, validated without staging), but `allowScript` and `commonEventId` remain undocumented in both places, and there are 0 required params with no explanation of which identifier combination is valid.

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 (page) plus the concrete check dimensions: structure, settings, references, flow heuristics. Scope ('a page') distinguishes it from map-wide or project-wide validators among the siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear conditional usage rule: pass `proposedLogic` (IR) to validate a replacement without staging it, i.e. a pre-write dry run. It also states the downstream consequence ('Errors block writes; warnings need acknowledgement'), which tells the agent when this must be called before mutating. Missing only explicit exclusions or named alternatives such as validate_map_events or validate_project_references.

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