벨로그 초안 작성

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

Annotations only indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds that the result is a private, unpublished draft and that the tool will never publish under any settings—useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields. It also notes body is Markdown, though the schema already states that; the publisher-exclusion detail is the main added transparency.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action, then add the publication caveat and reference to the sibling tool, then a brief input formatting note. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes key information.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: creation, privacy, non-publication, and the body format. It does not mention return values or potential errors, but those are not required by the presence of an output schema. The series_id caveat lives in the schema, which is appropriate. Overall, adequately complete.

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%, with each of the 6 parameters well-documented (e.g., url_slug generation, series_id draft-stage caveat, thumbnail URL restrictions). The description only adds that body is Markdown, which is already present in the schema, so it adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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description states '벨로그에 임시저장 글(초안)을 만든다' with a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies that drafts are unpublished and only visible to the author. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from velog_publish_draft by name, so there is no confusion with the sibling publish tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it creates a draft, never publishes, and directs the agent to call velog_publish_draft separately for publishing. This is a clear alternative reference and excludes misuse. The Markdown note for body also helps the agent prepare input.

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