validate_event

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the safety burden and does so explicitly: 'Read-only: reports warnings without changing anything.' It also discloses the substance of the checks performed. It lacks any note on cost, scope limits, or error behavior, so it is not exhaustive, but the key mutation/read contract is clear.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and every subsequent phrase adds real validation criteria rather than filler. It is dense with RPG Maker jargon and long parentheticals, which slightly impairs readability, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return behavior, and 'reports warnings without changing anything' covers the essentials for a validator. Combined with the enumerated check conditions, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the warning format itself is unspecified.

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% (mapId and eventId are both documented), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description references 'a single event' and 'the tile it sits on' but adds no syntax, ID constraints, or edge cases beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 (a single event's command lists and its tile placement), with enough detail to distinguish it from the many sibling validators (validate_project, validate_references, validate_assets). An agent can tell exactly what this checks without opening the schema.

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 carefully enumerates the conditions it checks (action-button page with lower priority on impassable tile, invisible wall, etc.), which implies when it is relevant, but it never says when to choose this over validate_project or validate_references, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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