cueprecise_set_chapter_titles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses two useful traits: titles are validated before saving, and boundaries/original text are immutable. However, '검증' (validation) criteria are undefined, and there's no mention of overwrite behavior, failure handling, or side effects, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the immutability constraint neatly appended. No filler or redundancy; every phrase earns its place. It loses one point because the brevity contributes to the under-specification of validation semantics.

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?

This is a save operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation in the schema. The description leaves critical unknowns: what validation rules titles must pass, what happens on invalid input, whether existing titles are replaced, and how fingerprint acts. For a state-changing tool, this is under-specified.

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?

The input schema provides zero descriptions for its parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the titles array holds host-authored titles for needs_titles, but leaves the purpose of video_id and fingerprint entirely unexplained, and doesn't state how the title object's id relates to existing outline data.

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+resource combination: validating and saving host-authored titles destined for cueprecise_outline's needs_titles. It also adds a meaningful negative constraint ('경계와 원문은 바꿀 수 없다'), distinguishing the tool's scope from one that edits boundaries or original text. It falls short of a 5 only because no sibling differentiation is explicitly made.

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 implies the use context: this tool is for the needs_titles field populated by host-authored titles. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate vs. other title-handling tools.

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