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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely new behavior — optimistic concurrency with conflict notification on stale writes, plus cost (무료) — but it does not say whether omitted fields (title, content, form) are preserved or cleared, nor what a conflict actually returns to the caller. The doubled "무료. [무료]" wastes a full sentence without adding information.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are short, but the trailing "무료. [무료]" repeats the same fact twice and the overall text is thin relative to a six-parameter mutation with a nested object. Roughly a quarter of the description is redundant rather than merely brief.

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 write tool with a nested content object, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the essentials are present, but two things an agent needs are missing: whether this is a full replace or a partial merge of the editable fields, and how a version conflict is surfaced. The idempotency guarantee from annotations is also not echoed in prose where it would matter most.

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%, so all six parameters including the nested content object are documented in the schema itself; baseline 3 applies. The description only indirectly touches one parameter, version, via the conflict sentence, and adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already states about document_id, request_id, or content.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("편집한 문서를 저장합니다" — save the edited document), which distinguishes it from document_create and document_get by implying an update to an existing document. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with document_create, so an agent must infer the create-vs-update boundary from the required document_id/version fields.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the call to make after editing an existing document, and the conflict sentence hints that it is meant for documents read elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use vs document_create, no prerequisite guidance (e.g. read the document first to obtain version), and no exclusions.

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