validate_minutes_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: it's a gate for preview_save_minutes, and issues include a 'fix' field enabling self-correction without asking. This is valuable behavioral insight not present in the annotations, though the description could have elaborated on the response format details if needed.

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 structured and front-loaded: it states the purpose and gate behavior first, then uses bullet points for the check items and concise examples. The inclusion of the list of error and warning categories is informative and not redundant. It is slightly long but appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it (and when not to), what it returns (via Returns section), and the check categories. With an output schema present, the return format is already specified, and the description does not need to duplicate it. It is self-sufficient for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%—the parameter 'minutes_markdown' is documented as '검증할 회의록 초안 전문(마크다운)' in the schema, and the description's Args section repeats this without adding new semantics. Since the schema already fully explains the parameter, the description adds no extra value here, warranting the baseline score of 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 description states the verb ('검사합니다') and resource ('회의록 초안의 구조') clearly, and positions it as a '저장 게이트' (storage gate). It lists specific error and warning categories, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings by naming check_minutes_grounding as the alternative for content grounding checks.

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?

Explicit usage context is given: use after drafting and before preview_save_minutes, and not for verifying content against the original text—instead use check_minutes_grounding. It also explains that errors block the approval token, which is a key workflow constraint.

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