create_day

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic creation action without disclosing side effects, validation (e.g., duplicate dates), or return value details. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned.

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?

The description is concise with a brief sentence and clear parameter list. It is not verbose, though the structure could be slightly improved (e.g., inline docs instead of Args heading). Still effective.

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?

Given 4 parameters, 3 required, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details like error conditions, idempotency, or how output is structured. Output schema exists but is not referenced.

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%, but the description provides meaningful Korean explanations for all parameters: trip_id (여행 ID), date (날짜 YYYY-MM-DD 형식), title (일자 제목 예시), content (일정 내용, 마크다운 지원, 선택사항). This adds substantial meaning beyond the JSON schema.

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 description clearly states the action ('여행에 새 일자를 추가한다' - adds a new day to a trip), identifies the resource (day) and context (trip). Among siblings like delete_day, update_day, this is unique and clearly distinguishes itself.

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 description implies the tool is for adding a new day, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., update_day for modifying existing days) or any prerequisites (e.g., trip must exist).

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