mark

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say what happens on re-marking (overwrite vs. append), whether the prior note is destroyed, what permissions are needed, or whether the call returns the updated record. For a mutating tool this leaves the agent guessing about side effects.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block, with no filler. The Args section duplicates the schema fields, but since the schema has zero descriptions that duplication is doing real work rather than padding.

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?

A three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to explain the result of the write; the description says nothing about return values or what happens to an existing entry. The parameter documentation is adequate for its complexity, but the missing side-effect/return context leaves a real gap.

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 0% and state has no enum, so the description is the only place parameters are explained. It documents all three: ident accepts a contest id, a URL, or a value from a list; state is defined as submitted/dropped/skip with meanings; note is described as a memo for submission time or path. The 'value received from the list' wording stays slightly vague on ident's accepted format.

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?

Names a concrete verb and object ('공모전에 내 상태를 기록한다') and enumerates the state values up front, which makes clear this is the write/persist path rather than a read like get_contest or my_list. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 versus check_eligibility, get_contest, or my_list, and no prerequisites (e.g. must the contest exist or be eligible first). The only guidance inferable is the meaning of the three state values, which is parameter semantics rather than when-to-use routing.

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