style_filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action 'applies a filter' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a mutation (likely yes, given the context), what permissions are needed, side effects, or how the filter interacts with the object. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean, making it appropriately concise. However, it's under-specified rather than optimally structured, as it lacks front-loaded critical details, but it doesn't waste words.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how filters are applied, or interaction with other style tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 schema already documents parameters well (objectId, filterType with enum, params). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering, which the schema covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '객체에 필터를 적용합니다' (applies a filter to an object) states a clear verb+resource action, but it's vague about what kind of filter or object. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'style_remove_filter' or other style tools, leaving the specific purpose ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'style_remove_filter'), the lack of differentiation makes it unclear when this is the appropriate choice.

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