下書きの見出し画像を設定

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and repeat-call profile is covered. The description adds the ID-validity constraint, but does not disclose the key behavioral risk implied by destructiveHint — whether an existing eyecatch is overwritten and how that interacts with idempotency. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the ID constraint follows immediately. Nothing extraneous.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the ID constraint. It omits the overwrite/destructive behavior and any note on whether path must reference an already-uploaded image, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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%, and the schema documents both id (pattern ^\d+$) and path (PNG/JPEG/GIF, 10MB limit). The description adds only the constraint that id must come from the draft list, which is marginal over the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (設定する) and resource (見出し画像/アイキャッチ) scoped to an existing draft, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling upload_image, which likely handles the upload step, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 phrase '下書き一覧にある ID だけ受け付ける' gives a validity constraint (the ID must exist in the draft list) that implies when the tool is applicable. However, it names no alternative and gives no explicit when-to-use vs upload_image or update_draft, nor any prerequisites like uploading the image first.

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