update_day

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only covers the basic modification behavior. It omits key details like prerequisites (trip/day must exist), authorization needs, or side effects. The only behavioral hint is the empty-string semantics for title/content.

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 a single sentence followed by a clear list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

Despite having an output schema (so return description is not needed), the description lacks context about prerequisites, side effects, and error conditions. This is a mutation tool with no annotations, so more context is expected.

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 adds some meaning: it explains that empty strings for title/content mean no change. However, it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions, especially for trip_id and day_id.

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 tool modifies the title or content of a day ('일자의 제목이나 내용을 수정한다'). This verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_day, delete_day, or clear_day_content.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention clear_day_content or other related tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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