toc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses none of it: nothing about what 'delete'/'rebuild' destroy, whether changes are reversible, permissions required, or that the 'handle' parameter (present in the schema) is mandatory in practice. The action-per-argument map is structural, not behavioral.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: the resource is named first, then each action with its argument set in a consistent semicolon-delimited form. Nothing is padded, though the compression is so aggressive that some semantic detail is sacrificed for brevity.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 18% schema coverage, the description leaves major gaps: the required handle/target relationships, mutation side effects, and return behavior are all unaddressed. An agent could not confidently invoke rebuild or delete from this text alone.

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 only 18% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it partly does by grouping parameters under the action that consumes them (?-marked as optional) — information the schema does not convey. It still omits meaning for handle, target, styles, include, and levels beyond their names, so it is helpful but incomplete.

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 terse '차례' (table of contents) plus an enumerated action dispatch — insert/rebuild/delete with their parameter signatures — tells an agent exactly what resource is manipulated and how each mode is shaped. It is not, however, distinguished from any sibling (style, numbering, page, field), so it stops short of a 5.

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 enumerates the three actions and their arguments but never says when to choose insert vs rebuild vs delete, nor what preconditions exist (e.g., that a TOC must already exist for rebuild/delete). No alternatives are named. The only implied guidance is the action-per-shape listing.

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