validate_card_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the kinds of errors reported, but with no output schema it does not clarify the response structure or whether the operation is purely in-memory vs. persistent validation, leaving some ambiguity.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, the types of errors checked, and a clear usage cue. There is no filler, and the action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only validation tool with full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: what it validates, what it reports, and when to use it. The lack of return-value detail is a minor gap given the simple nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema.

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% and the only parameter, project_uuid, is already documented as coming from list_card_projects. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond restating the resource being validated, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Validate'), resource ('invitation project'), and the kind of output ('reports any text-fit, image, or guest-addressing errors per customization'). It is distinct from siblings like get_card_project, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it misses the top score.

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?

'Use before placing an order' gives explicit contextual guidance on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as preview_card_template, so it stops short of full 5.

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