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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the auth requirement but says nothing about return values, side effects, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the permission note. Every word earns its place, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the missing behavioral and sibling-related context.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a close sibling (post_as_persona) that is not differentiated. The description does not explain the response format, how it differs from persona-based post creation, or any behavioral effects. Incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool.

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%, with title, content, and category_id all described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 '새 게시글을 작성합니다' (creates a new post) states a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from read/search siblings like get_post and search_posts. However, it does not differentiate it from the closely related sibling post_as_persona, which also creates posts but presumably with persona context.

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 includes a useful prerequisite ('write:posts 권한이 필요합니다' / requires write:posts permission) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus post_as_persona, no exclusions, and no alternative routing. An agent gets no decision support beyond the permission requirement.

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