update_qa_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a significant side effect: changing description or path resets scriptStatus to pending, requiring script regeneration. This adds valuable context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main action and then add a crucial side-effect note. No wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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 an update tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral consequence. It does not explicitly state partial-update semantics, but the schema's optional fields imply that, and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for two parameters (description and path) by explaining their side effect on scriptStatus, going beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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 '특정 검수 항목의 메타데이터를 수정합니다' (modifies metadata of a specific QA item), providing a clear verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_qa_item or save_qa_script.

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 implies usage for updating QA item metadata, giving clear context but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives. It does not mention other tools for related operations.

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