마크다운 파일 발행

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

The description discloses that it writes 'velog_post_id' to the file after publishing (side effect) and that repeated calls update rather than create. These behavioral traits go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true). No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core action; the second explains idempotent behavior on repeated calls.

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?

Covers core workflow, idempotent behavior, and file recording. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites, but includes output schema (not shown) to handle return values. Adequate for the complexity.

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 100% with descriptions that already explain parameter override behavior. The description adds overall context about reading frontmatter (title, tags, slug, series_id) and how parameters interact, providing value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'publishes local markdown file to Velog' and specifies the resource (markdown file). It differentiates from siblings like velog_publish_post by mentioning file I/O and frontmatter handling.

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 explicitly states that calling the same file again updates the existing post, providing clear guidance for repeated use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools for when to use this vs. alternative publish methods.

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