validate_deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details the validation rules, violation types (deck_size, max_copies, ink_limit, unknown_card), and return structure. It does not mention side effects (assumed read-only) or error handling beyond unknown_card, but the behavioral disclosure is substantial.

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?

The description is well-structured, starting with purpose, then rules, input format, return format, violation types, and usage note. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity of deck validation (multiple rules) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all rules, violation types, input format, return structure, and integration with import_deck. The output schema likely details return fields, so the description need not repeat them.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter 'deck' with minimal type info (array of objects, additionalProperties true). The description adds critical meaning: each entry must be {name: str, count: int} with name as card.full_name, provides an example, and explains how to build from import_deck output. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 the tool validates a Lorcana deck against format rules, specifying the verb 'validate' and resource 'deck'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like import_deck (which parses a deck) and deck_stats (likely summary).

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 provides clear context for use: validating a deck after importing via import_deck. It explains the input format and how to build it from import_deck output. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like search_cards for resolving unknown cards.

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