Character Validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It does well by stating the validation schema source, the response shape {isValid, errors?}, and that validation failure still returns HTTP 200, which is valuable non-obvious behavior.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core action and the critical response/HTTP behavior are front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the validation source, response shape, and HTTP behavior. However, it leaves unclear what 'data' refers to and how character_id drives the validation, which could lead an agent to expect a payload parameter that does not exist.

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%, and the description does not explicitly define character_id; it only indirectly associates it with the character card. The description mentions 'data' but the input schema has no data parameter, leaving the exact input contract unclear.

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 names a specific action, re-validating data against the character card's own gameSystem Zod schema, and notes this is server-side, which distinguishes it from character_get, character_update, and character_create. The term 'data' is somewhat ambiguous because the input schema only exposes character_id, but the core purpose is still clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of character_get, character_update, or other siblings. The phrase 'server-side validation' hints at a context, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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