validate_card

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

Without annotations, the description reveals it is non-destructive (validate), returns diagnostics, and accepts cardId from prior calls, but does not explicitly state read-only or performance details.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. The description efficiently conveys core functionality and parameter nuances.

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?

Covers key aspects: validation schema, return diagnostics, accepted inputs (JSON or cardId), and host/strictMode options. Lacks explicit output format but adequate for agent use.

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 100%, baseline 3; the description adds context: 'card' can be JSON or cardId, 'host' checks compatibility, 'strictMode' treats warnings as errors, improving clarity beyond schema.

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 explicitly states the tool validates an Adaptive Card JSON against the v1.6 schema, returns diagnostics with fixes, and distinguishes from sibling tools focused on generation or workflow.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for validation, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives from siblings.

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