ASR 런타임 삭제

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what actually gets deleted (the local runtime cache), the consent/confirmation requirement, the concurrency refusal condition, and the two-step token protocol. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and target path, then consent, then refusal condition, then the token fallback. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no repetition.

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 destructive, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers target, consent, refusal, and the retry protocol, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it safely. The only return value an agent must handle (a token) is explicitly described.

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 coverage is 100% and the confirmToken parameter is already documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining the protocol around it: that the token is returned by a first call on dialog-less clients and must only be supplied after user consent.

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 ('삭제한다') plus the exact resource and its filesystem path (/root/.cache/dotbugi-mcp/asr). The ASR-prefixed name and path make it unmistakable against siblings like asr_install and asr_status.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: user must approve in a client confirmation dialog, and calls are rejected while install or transcription jobs are running. It also prescribes the fallback path (confirmToken) for clients without a dialog. It does not name sibling tools to check first (e.g., asr_status) or state when not to call at all, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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