validate_story_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It mentions validation but lacks details on side effects (e.g., it is read-only), output format, error handling, or prerequisites like component existence. The note about space_id being unused adds some transparency but is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key verb 'Validates', and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes meaning.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should specify what the tool returns (e.g., validation errors, success status). It also does not explain how the component schema is referenced or what happens on mismatch. The 'unused' space_id is acknowledged but not fully contextualized.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by indicating mutual exclusivity between story_id and story_content, which the schema does not convey. This helps the agent choose the correct parameter combination.

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 story content against a component schema, specifying two input modes (story_id or story_content). It distinguishes from siblings like create_story or update_story by focusing on validation only.

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?

It provides explicit context on when to use each input mode (story_id to fetch, story_content directly). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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