equation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds real behavioral value by mapping each action to its accepted parameters, which the schema does not express. But it is silent on destructive/reversible behavior of delete, permissions, or side effects on the document — significant omissions for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense line, front-loaded with the resource identity followed by the action/parameter map. No wasted prose, though the parameter enumeration is compact to the point of being a schema restatement.

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 15-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema or annotations, the action-to-parameter mapping covers the most important gap (which params apply where). But key semantics for script/latex/display and mutation behavior remain undocumented, so it is only adequately complete.

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 only 40% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does group parameters under the action that accepts them, adding meaning beyond the flat schema, but it explains no parameter semantics (script vs latex, display, number, baseline) and leaves the nested frame/margin objects to the 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 names the resource (수식/equation, in Hangul script or LaTeX form) and enumerates the four distinct operations (insert, update, delete, convert_latex), so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like image, shape, or chart, which also create document objects.

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?

Listing the parameter set per action (e.g., update takes target; delete takes target; convert_latex takes latex) is genuinely useful routing guidance for choosing an action. However, it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer script vs latex input.

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