authoring_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but for a zero-parameter reference read the burden is low and "읽으세요" (read) communicates that this is a non-mutating retrieval. It does not state whether content is static, versioned, or cached, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what the guide contains, the second states when to use it. Nothing is duplicated or wasted, and the ordering matches how an agent should reason about the tool.

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 parameterless documentation tool with an output schema, the description covers both the content scope and the invocation timing, which is nearly everything needed. The only omitted context is whether the guide is authoritative/current or how it relates to lesson_validate rules.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. An output schema exists, so return-value semantics are handled structurally rather than in prose.

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?

Names the resource (a guide) and enumerates its exact contents: lesson JSON format including op, scene options and widgets, motion rules, and TTS sentence authoring. No sibling tool in the list overlaps with this documentation role, so an agent can distinguish it from lesson_save, lesson_validate, or speech_preview without opening anything.

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?

"레슨을 쓰기 전에 읽으세요" gives an explicit trigger condition (read before authoring a lesson), which is the key routing decision for a reference tool. It does not name exclusion cases or point to alternative tools once the guide has been consumed, which keeps it 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.