벨로그 초안 수정

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description details exactly what gets destroyed: omitted tags are wiped, url_slug is regenerated, series connection is severed. It also explains the safety mechanism of rejecting published IDs, adding significant behavioral context.

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?

A single dense paragraph front-loads the critical point (full replacement) and uses examples to clarify. Every sentence adds unique value, with no fluff or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers essential safety guidance: how to avoid data loss, what to do before calling, and what inputs are rejected. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is only 29%, so description compensates by explaining tags, url_slug, and series_id reset behavior when omitted. It also notes body is a full replacement. However, thumbnail and title semantics are not explicitly addressed, so not a 5.

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?

Description clearly states it replaces an existing draft entirely ('통째로 교체'), which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like velog_update_post (published posts) and velog_publish_draft by focusing on draft modification and even rejecting published post IDs.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use and how: read current values with velog_get_post first and pass all fields to avoid resetting. It also states a clear exclusion (published post IDs) and describes consequences of omitting fields, giving practical usage context.

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