done

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does so by stating that the tool mutates state (marks the transmitted batch as processed) and triggers an overlay with summary and highlighting. It does not discuss reversibility or error cases, but the key side effects are clearly exposed.

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 three sentences, purpose first, then effects, then mandatory usage. It is economical and front-loaded. The middle sentence is slightly jargon-dense ('갱신 전략', '오버레이') but still each sentence contributes needed information.

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 simple signalling tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, side effects, and parameter roles. It leaves the exact meaning of 'update strategy' and 'batch' somewhat undefined, but an agent can reasonably infer when and why to invoke it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'summary' is displayed in the overlay and 'selectors' determine which elements to highlight. However, 'changedFiles' is only indirectly referenced via '전송된 묶음' (sent batch), which is vague. Partial compensation for the lack of schema docs.

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 opens with '수정 완료 신호' (modification completion signal), immediately stating what the tool does. It then details the specific behaviors: executing an update strategy, displaying a summary, highlighting selector-matched elements, and marking a transmitted batch as processed. This clearly separates it from the observational and navigational sibling tools (status, wait, screenshot, open, close).

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 final sentence '매 수정 후 반드시 호출' explicitly instructs when to call the tool: after every modification. This is strong usage context, but the description does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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