components_v2_validate

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

Adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: offline operation, rejection of file components with a reason, and the exact return structure. Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, but the description discloses additional constraints and limitations.

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 clearly labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Returns) with no fluff. Every sentence adds information, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical info.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, constraints, and return format. No notable gaps.

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% for the single param, but the schema description is tautological ('Components array (will be validated)'). The tool description enriches the parameter meaning by defining what validation entails (Components V2-specific rules) and clarifying scope.

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+resource: 'Validate a Components V2 components array OFFLINE (no Discord API call)'. Also lists specific validation rules (40-cap, placement, nesting, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling send/preview tools by emphasizing offline validation.

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?

Provides clear guidance: 'iterate on a layout before sending' and notes it 'saves round-trips'. It implies use before API calls but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the context is unambiguous.

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