create_procedure

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

No annotations are present. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements, or error handling. The phrase '의료 필수 동일' is vague and does not clarify behavior.

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?

The description is concise (one sentence plus a list) but could benefit from better formatting (e.g., bullets or grouping). It is not verbose but slightly unstructured.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values (e.g., created object ID, success status). Missing information on error handling and post-creation behavior makes it incomplete for a creation 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?

The description enumerates all expected fields (name, lang, tagline, etc.) with types (strings, arrays, markdown). Since the input schema is a generic object with no defined properties, the description fully compensates by providing parameter meanings.

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 '시술 가이드 발행(API)' which indicates the tool publishes a procedure guide. The verb '발행' and resource '시술 가이드' are clear. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_article' by the specific resource type, but the Korean text may be ambiguous for non-native speakers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_article' or 'health'. The description only lists fields without context for selection.

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