update_page_cache

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 discloses that the tool updates a file, that keys must match column names exactly, and that unmatched URLs are skipped and reported in a 'not_found' list. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive (overwrites the file), whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the file or table format is invalid. These gaps are notable for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 moderately long but each sentence serves a purpose: defining the action, establishing generality, and detailing matching and error behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler. A slight trim could improve conciseness, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (matching rules, multiple potential file types) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the essential behavioral contract: how updates are applied, key matching, and not_found handling. It does not address edge cases like file existence or malformed tables, but for a general-purpose updater, it is reasonably complete.

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 effectively explains the 'updates' parameter: each item must contain 'URL' (or 'url'), and other keys correspond to table column names, with exact-match semantics. It also clarifies the 'not_found' reporting. The 'cache_file' parameter is only implied as the target file, which is adequate given its self-explanatory name.

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 clearly states the verb (갱신한다, updates) and the resource (markdown pipe table file keyed by URL). It also provides examples of use cases (cache, progress table, assignment table), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings (check_links, check_recency), those are clearly different actions, so differentiation is implicit.

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 description identifies the tool as a general-purpose utility ('범용 도구') and specifies conditions for use: updates must include 'URL', and other keys must exactly match column headers. It also explains the behavior when a URL is not found. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or recommend an alternative tool, though siblings are clearly different functions.

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