numbering

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does little: only 'remove(range)' hints at destruction, with no statement about what gets destroyed, reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects of applying/updating definitions. For a mutation-capable tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is short and front-loads the domain, and the signature notation is compact. But the notation is cryptic and terse to the point of under-specification, so brevity here trades away clarity rather than earning it.

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?

A 12-parameter tool with a nested 'levels' object, no output schema, no annotations, and 33% schema coverage needs more than a signature list. Missing behavioral context (definition lifecycle, error cases, how def/handle interact) leaves the definition incomplete for reliable 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?

With only 33% schema coverage across 12 parameters, the description partially compensates by mapping parameters to actions and marking optionals with '?' (e.g. apply(range, kind, def?, level?)), which the flat schema does not convey. However, the semantics of many parameters (at, set, delta, start, handle, levels) are left to the sparse schema descriptions.

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 domain (문단 번호·글머리표·개요 번호 — paragraph numbering, bullets, outline numbering) but supplies no clear verb for the tool as a whole; it is a topic label followed by an action inventory. An agent can infer this is the numbering-management tool versus siblings like para_format or style, but the overall purpose is implied rather than stated.

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 action signatures hint at what each operation does (define, apply, level, restart, remove, update), but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool, when not to, or how to pick between actions for a given task. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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