대표에게 메일 알림 + 댓글 기준 잡기

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the server prepends '[WYEA 작업] ' to the subject, appends the issue URL and a 'reply as comment' sentence to the body, preserves the existing seen baseline (creating it if absent), and prescribes error handling (do not retry when mail.ok is false). It does not state authentication requirements or rate limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the optionality and the core action are front-loaded, followed by the server-side transformations and the failure-handling rule. Slightly dense but every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the side effects (comment, seen baseline, email) and the one failure signal it references (mail.ok). It is nearly complete, though it could clarify what the tool returns on success beyond the mail.ok flag.

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 all four parameters in detail (length limits, exclusiveMinimum, server-appended text). The description adds only marginal framing (comment optionality, seen baseline), consistent with the baseline 3 when 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 names a concrete set of actions (leave an optional comment, preserve/create the 'seen' baseline, send a MailApp notification email) which is far more specific than the name alone. It stops short of differentiating itself from close siblings like wyea_comment or wyea_ask, which the agent must disambiguate unaided.

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 parenthetical '(선택)' marks the comment as optional and the schema note says to use the comment field when the request should also be logged on the issue, but there is no tool-level when-to-use guidance or comparison to the sibling tools (wyea_comment, wyea_ask, wyea_status). The agent gets no explicit condition selecting this tool over the alternatives.

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