add_maintenance_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-destructive upsert behavior ('does not overwrite, smart-updates the existing page'), which is genuinely important for a write tool. However, it doesn't clarify what 'smart update' actually merges, what happens to omitted fields, permission requirements, or return 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?

Two tightly written sentences that front-load the core purpose before the upsert caveat. No filler, though it is terse enough that it leaves behavioral questions open rather than earning a 5.

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 10-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It explains the core upsert semantics but omits what a successful call returns and how partial updates are resolved, which matters for an agent deciding what to pass.

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 100% with all 10 parameters documented in the schema, including Korean-language field hints and format examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, so 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?

The description names a specific resource (maintenance site / client company) and states both operations: registration and update. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_maintenance_sites by being the write-side counterpart, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives (e.g., when to use list_maintenance_sites to check first). The upsert behavior is described but the agent is not told under what circumstances to reach for this tool versus the work-log or troubleshooting siblings.

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