공통컴포넌트 업그레이드

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false): it discloses that user-modified files are preserved unless force is set, that a backup is written to upgrade-backup/ before any overwrite, and that hard conflicts cause a refusal with no writes at all. This is exactly the 'what gets destroyed / atomicity' context a destructive mutation tool needs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by safety behavior. Dense with information and free of filler, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavior an agent needs: preview-by-default, backup destination, preservation of user edits, and refusal on hard conflict. Only permission/auth prerequisites are left unaddressed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's statements about force and dryRun largely restate the schema's own parameter descriptions rather than adding new syntax or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb (upgrade/갱신) and resource (installed common components recorded in the manifest, compared against upstream latest). The scope is well-defined and distinguishable from generic project tools, but it never names a sibling (e.g. migrate_egovframe_project or the sync_* tools) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Provides an implied workflow recommendation — dryRun (default) previews the plan first — which is genuinely useful usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over migrate_egovframe_project or the sync tools, and gives no explicit when-not conditions.

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