add_troubleshooting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the write target (Notion) but says nothing about required Notion permissions, whether an entry is created as a new page, whether duplicates are possible, whether the write is reversible, or what happens on partial failure — all significant for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the content type, and the destination with zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme brevity is partly what leaves the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not confirm which fields are mandatory, does not describe the created record or any returned identifier, and gives no failure or retry behavior. Only the destination is disclosed.

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% and every one of the 7 fields carries its own Korean description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no field-level meaning, no format hints for error_log, and no indication that title/symptom/resolution are the three required fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 (적재합니다, 'loads/inserts') plus a clearly bounded resource (에러 및 트러블슈팅 조치 내역) and the destination system (노션). This separates it from read-side siblings like search_troubleshooting and from the adjacent add_work_log, though it never names those siblings 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus search_troubleshooting, add_work_log, or list_work_logs, and no prerequisites or timing conditions are stated. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the write path for troubleshooting records.

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