이미지 올리기

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotations: it specifies valid formats (PNG/JPEG/GIF/WebP) and that detection is by content, not extension. It also warns that uploaded URLs are public, there is no deletion API, and encourages pre-upload verification. This adds significant and non-obvious context, giving the agent both safety and operational awareness. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted; rather, the description enriches them.

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 three sentences: the first states purpose, the second provides format constraints, the third conveys a critical warning. It is front-loaded, and every sentence adds distinct value. The use of a warning symbol and bold for '파일 내용' draws attention without unnecessary verbiage.

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 output schema, the description provides a clear output expectation ('markdown for the body') and covers key behavioral constraints (file types, public URLs, no deletion). It also benefits from schema descriptions that explain the 'type' and 'post_id' parameters. Minor gaps remain, such as exact markdown format or error handling for invalid files, but overall the definition is well-rounded for an agent.

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 75% (descriptions for path, type, post_id; alt lacks one). The description adds meaning to the path parameter by constraining accepted file types and specifying content-based validation, which is not present in the schema. It also clarifies the tool's output (markdown) relevant to the overall parameters. While not detailing each parameter syntax, it compensates for the alt gap partially and enhances the path semantics above the baseline.

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 a specific action: 'Uploads a local image file to Velog and returns markdown for the body.' It names the resource (local image), the destination (Velog), and the output (markdown), distinguishing it from sibling tools like velog_render_cover or velog_update_profile_image (the latter explicitly referenced in the type parameter).

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 implies the primary use case (uploading images for post body markdown) through the phrase '본문용 마크다운' and warns about appropriate file types. An explicit alternative is provided in the type parameter description: 'profile 은 프로필 사진용 분류일 뿐 — 사진 교체는 velog_update_profile_image' (profile is just a classification; replacement goes to velog_update_profile_image). However, this alternative is not in the main description, only in the schema, so it lacks the explicitness of a fully self-contained usage guideline.

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