velog_create_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: trying GraphQL first and falling back to Playwright on auth/API errors, plus the image pipeline (HTML/SVG → screenshot → velcdn upload →  embed). However, it omits end-state behavior when both paths fail, side effects, and account/auth requirements beyond a schema reference.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in one clear sentence, but the writing style guide is a large 7-bullet block of content-quality guidance that is only tangentially needed for invoking the tool. It is organized with a header and bullets, but much of it is verbose secondary material rather than scannable invocation-critical information.

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?

This is a complex tool (5 parameters, dual execution paths, image generation) with no output schema and no annotations. The description never states what the tool returns on success (post URL? ID?), what happens if both GraphQL and Playwright fail, or whether drafts are recoverable. The style guide is thorough on content but thin on the operational contract an agent needs.

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 60%, and the writing style guide substantially compensates for the gap: it specifies body structure (## subheadings, --- dividers, bold emphasis, lists, short paragraphs), tone (first-person, experience-based), and title hook patterns. This adds rich meaning beyond the schema's bare '마크다운 본문' field. tags and publish gain little from the description, but publish is already well documented in 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 opening sentence '벨로그에 새 글을 작성합니다' states a specific verb (create) and resource (Velog post). The word '새 글' (new post) implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling velog_edit_post, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus velog_edit_post, velog_login, or velog_list_posts. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent text describes the internal fallback mechanism (GraphQL → Playwright), which is behavioral, not selection guidance.

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