velog_edit_post

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only notes 'GraphQL 전용, 폴백 없음' (GraphQL-only, no fallback). It does not mention that the operation mutates the post, requires authentication/ownership, or how existing fields are replaced or merged.

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 first sentence is efficient, but it is followed by a large, unrelated 'writing style guide' block that dominates the description. Most of that content does not help an agent invoke the tool and should be moved elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. It omits authentication/account requirements, partial-update behavior, error conditions, and return information; the style guide does not fill these gaps.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the five parameters, including required 'id' and 'account', or the optional 'body', 'tags', and 'title'. The style guide discusses writing style but not parameter meaning, format, or relation to 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 states the operation clearly: '기존 벨로그 글을 수정합니다' (edits an existing Velog post), with a specific verb and resource. The word '기존' (existing) distinguishes it from creation, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus velog_create_post, velog_list_posts, or velog_list_accounts. The only contextual clue is that it edits an existing post, and the long style guide is about content writing, not tool selection.

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