render_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses a file-writing side effect with a concrete default output path (~/Documents/doc-template/<제목>-<날짜>.html), the theme fallback chain (param → frontmatter → t1), and that the result includes the file path plus contrast-check output. The main omission is overwrite behavior, which is safety-relevant for a tool that writes to disk.

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?

Three dense sentences, purpose first, then the two default behaviors, then the result shape. No filler or repetition. The structure is logical and front-loaded, though the two default clauses could have been formatted more explicitly for scanability.

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 file-writing tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: core transformation, default paths, and result contents. But it leaves overwrite semantics unexplained (critical for a tool that writes files), canonical_url's role unspecified, and the '대비 검사' (contrast check) vaguely defined. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 adds genuine semantics for theme (empty → frontmatter → t1) and output_path (empty → default path), which is valuable. However, overwrite and canonical_url are never mentioned, and markdown is only loosely characterized as 'Obsidian Markdown.' The compensation is partial, not complete.

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 Korean description states a specific verb and resource: '옵시디언 Markdown을 문서 템플릿 HTML(한 파일)로 만든다' (creates Obsidian Markdown into a single document-template HTML file). The input, output, and file format are all concrete. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling render_file, but the core purpose is unambiguous and distinct from list_themes, get_starter, and publish_document.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its four siblings, especially render_file, which likely overlaps. The description explains default-value behaviors (empty theme, empty output_path) but never states selection criteria, exclusions, or a 'use render_file instead when...' condition. An agent must infer the boundary between render_document and render_file.

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