Apply Feedback to Pro Draft

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation. The description adds valuable context: HTTP-only requirement, anthropic_api_key fallback to environment variable, and the return fields (task_id, status). It does not contradict annotations.

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 reasonably concise, starting with the key constraint '[HTTP 모드 전용]', followed by a directed warning, and organized Args/Returns sections. It is structured and not overly verbose, though it could be slightly tighter given the schema already documents the parameters.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage limitations, parameters, and return values. With an output schema present and a simple 3-parameter tool, this is nearly complete. However, it does not specify what happens to the draft after feedback is applied (e.g., whether it updates in place or triggers further processing), which would enhance completeness.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented (e.g., task_id '피드백을 적용할 Pro 작업 ID', feedback '수정 요청 사항', anthropic_api_key with env var fallback). The description's Args list repeats the same information without adding new semantic value.

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 'Pro Mode로 생성된 블로그 초안에 피드백을 반영합니다' (applies feedback to blog drafts created in Pro Mode), which is a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool blog_apply_feedback by the 'Pro' designation and Pro Mode mention.

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 explicitly states it is HTTP mode only, and warns Claude Desktop/Code users to use Claude directly instead, providing a clear alternative. It also ties usage to Pro-generated drafts, giving context for when this tool is appropriate.

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