entry_update_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose mutation of a broad set of properties plus a notable side effect carried in the schema (image auto-resize toward ~200px). It does not say what happens on an unknown object name/id, whether changes are reversible or persist into the run, what errors look like, or what is returned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical list earning its length by telling the agent what can be set. The property list is dense but scannable; nothing is redundant filler.

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 two-parameter tool whose real complexity sits in a documented nested props object, this is largely sufficient: it names the property families and the pre-run usage context. Remaining gaps are error behavior, return value, and prerequisites for the `object` identifier, which are minor given the rich nested schema and the fact that no output schema exists.

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?

Top-level coverage is 50%, but the nested props object is individually documented (x/y ranges, layer semantics, scale, picture, textbox font fields), so the schema does most of the work. The description's contribution is an inventory of property categories — helpful for discovery of what `props` accepts, but it adds no syntax, units, or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 (속성 변경) and resource (오브젝트), and enumerates the property families it covers (name, x/y, size, rotation, layer, textbox styling). The phrase "실행 전 '초기 상태'를 정하는 용도" scopes it away from runtime manipulation, giving an agent a usable discriminator versus entry_object_op, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 one temporal usage cue — call this before running to establish an object's initial state — which implies the runtime alternative without naming it. There is no explicit when-not condition, no prerequisite (e.g. object must already exist), and no statement about which sibling to use for live/runtime property changes.

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