swu_validate_deck

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Validate a deck' but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, what inputs are consumed, or what the result means. No side effects, requirements, or limitations are mentioned.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide essential context for a tool with 3 optional parameters. It does not explain how the deck is passed, what formats are accepted beyond the two names, or what 'validating' entails. This is inadequate for proper tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. It only alludes to the format_name parameter ('Premier or Twin Suns') but completely omits decklist and session_id. Users are left without understanding how to supply the deck or what session_id means.

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 uses a specific verb 'Validate' with a clear resource ('a Star Wars Unlimited deck') and specifies the supported formats ('Premier or Twin Suns'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like swu_analyze_deck or swu_suggest_cards, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling deck-related tools. The description simply states what it does without context.

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