post_fix_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the target channel (#axr-qa) and that it's for sharing fix updates, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or mutative operation (though 'Post' implies creation), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., message posted). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core action and target. The Korean translation ('수정 내용 공유') adds clarity for Korean-speaking users without redundancy. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and implied mutation. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotation and output information, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 three parameters (thread_ts, message, pr_url) with descriptions in Korean. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying that 'message' contains the fix update content. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no extra value from the description.

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 action ('Post a fix update') and target ('to #axr-qa channel'), with the Korean translation adding context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_bug_detail' or 'scan_qa_bugs' by focusing on posting updates rather than retrieving or scanning data. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'fix update' versus other updates, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when a fix is ready), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_item_status' for status changes. Usage is implied only by the action of posting to a specific channel, with no explicit context for selection.

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