dms_favorite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the operation is idempotent, whether it mutates state, what happens if the resource is already favorited, or what authentication/errors to expect. For a mutation-style tool this is a complete 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?

Four words is not conciseness but under-specification — the phrase is front-loaded yet conveys almost nothing beyond the tool name. Sibling to the 'Process'-style tautology examples, it wastes no space but also earns none.

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 simple one-parameter tool this description is still inadequate: with no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets no confirmation of mutation semantics, idempotency, or failure behavior, all of which the description should have supplied.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents resourceId fully. The description adds no additional meaning about the ID's format, scope, or constraints, which is the expected baseline 3.

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 phrase '즐겨찾기 표시' merely restates the tool name 'dms_favorite'; it is ambiguous between 'mark this resource as a favorite' and 'show favorites'. It does not distinguish the action from siblings like dms_list or dms_unfavorite, so an agent cannot confidently tell what the call does.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of dms_unfavorite, dms_list, or search_files_resources. The only inference an agent can make is from the name's implied opposite (dms_unfavorite), which is not spelled out in the description.

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