create_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses non-publishing behavior, supported Markdown formats, image/file attachment syntax, local-path-only restriction, 10MB file limit, formula/place syntax, and that place picks the first search result and reports it in the output.

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 core statement is front-loaded and every included detail (formats, path rules, limit, place behavior) is useful. It is dense but not bloated.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers the tool's non-trivial input conventions and place-selection behavior; minor gaps such as title/category handling and session requirements are not critical for correct invocation.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the markdown parameter's syntax and supported formats, but provides nothing about title, category, or tags beyond what their names/schema already imply.

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+resource: writes a post in Markdown and saves it as a draft, and explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it does not publish. This clearly separates it from siblings like publish_draft.

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 gives clear context: use this to create and temporarily save a draft, not to publish. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the '발행하지 않는다' statement makes the tool's placement among draft/publish siblings clear.

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