Update User Rider

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not whether the change is reversible, not that a pin is a required authentication/verification credential, and not whether existing coverage is overwritten. It does at least signal a targeted mutation of one field on one record, which is marginally more than the tool name alone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. The brevity is arguably under-specification rather than over-writing, so it is penalized under other dimensions, but the structure itself is clean.

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 mutating, likely authenticated operation (optional pin) with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description omits essentially all context an agent needs beyond the bare action. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the auth and side-effect story is absent.

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% across four parameters. The description implies coverage_amount and rider_id by naming the coverage amount of one rider, but says nothing about user_id scoping or the optional pin field, whose purpose (PIN verification for a sensitive mutation) is completely undocumented anywhere. With a 0% coverage schema the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 names a specific verb (가입금액을 변경합니다 – change the coverage amount) and a specific resource (특약 1건 – a single rider), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as resolve_user_rider or register_user_policy, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a rider mutation.

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 tool versus resolve_user_rider or register_user_policy, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The only implicit guidance is '1건' (a single rider), which hints at single-record scope but does not route the agent among alternatives.

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