validate_minutes_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the gate mechanism (errors block approval token in preview_save_minutes) and that issues include rule_id, severity, line, and fix so the agent can self-correct. This goes beyond what annotations convey and helps the agent understand downstream 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?

The description is well-structured: purpose, gate explanation, validation item lists, Args/Returns/Examples. It front-loads the key purpose and gate. While somewhat long, every section serves a function and the bullet-point lists of error/warning items are directly actionable. Minor redundancy with the schema's parameter description prevents a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it doesn't. It provides the validation item lists, the gate relationship, and usage timing. The examples clarify both when to use and when not to use. This is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly without missing critical context.

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% and the single parameter minutes_markdown already has a clear description ('검증할 회의록 초안 전문(마크다운)'). The description's Args section essentially repeats this without adding new information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no meaningful extra semantics.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: '회의록 초안의 구조를 검사합니다' (checks the structure of the minutes draft) and immediately labels it a '저장 게이트' (save gate). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming check_minutes_grounding as the alternative for content-grounding checks, and the usage examples make the differentiation concrete.

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?

Provides explicit usage timing: '초안을 쓴 직후, 저장 미리보기 전' (right after drafting, before preview) and an explicit exclusion: when checking grounding, use check_minutes_grounding. This leaves no ambiguity about when to call this tool versus alternatives.

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