pronunciation_add

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a persistent mutation ('등록합니다') but never says whether an existing reading is overwritten, whether it requires a valid/initialized course, or what happens on duplicate words.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a concrete example; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to cover prerequisites and side effects, and it does neither. Only word/reading get any explanation, leaving course_dir and persistence behavior undocumented.

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% with three required parameters. The example clarifies the roles of word and reading, but course_dir — the most consequential parameter — gets no explanation of its format, whether it must exist, or how it is identified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it registers ('등록합니다') the Korean reading of an English word into a course. The example (word="Dictionary", reading="딕셔너리") makes the operation concrete and clearly separates it from authoring siblings like lesson_save or course_build.

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 versus siblings, and no prerequisites stated — notably it never says a course must already exist or how course_dir is chosen. The example illustrates input shape but not the conditions that select this tool.

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