design_stamp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the side effect (stamping records), the guardrail (only stamps trees lacking records), date defaulting to today, and that the verification criteria snapshot comes from the current API. It also honestly states that rechecking revised standards is left to the designer, not the machine. Missing details like permissions or reversibility, but strong for a non-destructive stamp tool.

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 well-structured with line breaks and bold emphasis, placing the core purpose first and then parameter details. It's concise enough for the complexity, though there is slight redundancy in restating the purpose across the last paragraph (the 'why' is explained twice). Overall efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no description. The main operational nuances (only stamp records absent, criteria snapshot semantics, interaction with design_validate) are addressed. Minor gaps remain: unspecified error handling or behavior when both path and all_confirmed are supplied, but acceptable for low complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: path, all_confirmed, and date are each explained with default behavior. It also clarifies what the stamped verification criteria means (API-provided version per cited standard). Some ambiguity remains about path format or precedence when both path and all_confirmed are given, but the core semantics are covered.

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 clearly states the tool stamps confirmation-time records (검증일·검증기준) into a confirmed tree, and explains the two modes (path vs all_confirmed). It references design_validate to signal relationship, but does not explicitly name what distinguishes it from all siblings, so not 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?

It provides parameter-driven usage (all_confirmed=True applies to all confirmed trees without records), and explains that the records are later consumed by design_validate. However, it never states explicitly when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor gives a 'do not use when' condition; usage is implied rather than stated.

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