다이어그램 그리기

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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: the tool uploads to Vellog, performs self-inspection, refuses to upload on failure, this judgment cannot be disabled, and failed outputs are rejected even via velog_upload_image. It also explains that auto-layout uses browser measurements and that plain input yields plain output. Annotations provide no such details (only readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the full burden and exceeds it.

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 dense but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose, then systematically covers behavioral rules, styling tips, layout design, and icon/tone lists. Bold headings structure the guidance, making it scannable. No filler or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (10 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, side effects, failure modes, layout strategy, styling guidance, and a list of available icons and tones. It explains the auto-layout and inspection behavior thoroughly. While some parameters like legend, upload, post_id are not detailed, they are self-explanatory from the schema. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose and recommended usage of points/label_at (discouraged due to inspection), groups (auto-boxing via members), planes (color separation for flow types), icons/tags (to avoid plain output), and layout guidelines (align y, row spacing ~200). It also clarifies that w can be omitted and is measured from text. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 draws composition/flow diagrams, generates PNGs, uploads to Vellog, and returns markdown for embedding. It distinguishes itself from sibling render tools by specifying '구성도·흐름도' (composition/flow) vs. sequence and cover. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 extensive guidance on when to use the tool and how to structure inputs (grid layout, align y, use groups/planes, avoid points/label_at). It also explicitly warns that failed outputs won't be accepted by velog_upload_image, effectively telling the agent not to bypass the inspection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer velog_render_sequence or velog_render_cover, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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