공통컴포넌트 업그레이드

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: writes are preceded by a backup into upgrade-backup/, user-modified files are preserved unless force, dryRun touches no disk, and hard conflicts are rejected atomically with nothing written. These align with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true and fill in the safety/reversibility story the annotations only flag.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, force/preservation rule, dryRun-first workflow with backup location, and atomic refusal on hard conflict. The safety-critical default (dryRun) is surfaced early and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

Annotations already cover the destructive/open-world/idempotency profile and there is no output schema, so the description carries only the behavioral burden, which it does well. The main gap is what the dryRun plan actually reports back, which matters for the recommended preview-first workflow.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral meaning to the two risky flags: force governs overwriting user-edited files after backup, and dryRun is the default plan-only mode. It does not clarify the components id format or how an unspecified list resolves beyond the schema's note.

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?

Specific verb (갱신/upgrade) plus specific resource scope: components installed and recorded in the manifest, compared against upstream latest. That scoping alone separates it from add_egovframe_components (new installs), reassemble_egovframe_components, and migrate_egovframe_project, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear operating context: dryRun is the default so a plan is inspected first, force is required to touch user-modified files, and hard conflicts abort. It never names sibling alternatives or explicit when-not conditions (e.g., use add_egovframe_components for new components, migrate for a target-version jump), so it falls short of a 5.

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