oss_unknown_update

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two behavioral facts that matter: optimistic concurrency via expected_revision (mismatch yields revision_conflict) and the evidence-level requirement for verification. It does not state that this is a mutating operation or what it destroys/overwrites, nor what a successful response contains, and it is silent on six of the nine parameters that change behavior (status, note, add_supporting, add_contradicting, agent).

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the action is in the first line and the hard constraint in the second. The "Args:" docstring remnant is slightly rough but each line carries real information, with no filler.

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?

A 9-parameter mutation with zero annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions needs far more than two documented arguments. Key questions – which fields the update may change, whether resolution closes the unknown, whether add_supporting/add_contradicting feed the evidence requirement – are 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 description coverage is 0% and `resolution` is an untyped open object in the schema, so the description's inline shape ({disposition, rationale, evidence_ids}) and its three disposition values are genuinely additive – without them the agent could not populate the object at all. Conversely, note, status, agent, add_supporting, add_contradicting and unknown_id receive no explanation anywhere, so half the surface remains opaque.

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?

"미확인 갱신·해결" names a resource (unknown items) and two verbs (update, resolve), so the general action is inferable. But it never distinguishes itself from siblings like oss_unknown_record or oss_unknowns_list, and "미확인" is left as internal jargon with no gloss. Purpose is recoverable but not sharp.

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?

It does encode one genuine precondition: a resolution with disposition=verified requires evidence at or above required_level. That is a real "when this will fail" rule. However, there is no guidance on when to use update vs. record vs. list, and no mention of what the withdrawn/out-of-scope dispositions are for.

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