메모 수정

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a modification tool but doesn't cover important aspects: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), error handling, or response format. '수정합니다' implies mutation, but lacks safety or operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a simple update tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from capabilities). No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with a complete input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (per context signals), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and modifiable fields, but lacks crucial behavioral context for a write operation. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but permission requirements, error cases, and update semantics remain undocumented.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (id, title, content, tags) with descriptions and optionality. The description adds minimal value by listing the modifiable fields ('제목, 내용, 태그' - title, content, tags), but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('수정합니다' - modifies/updates) and resource ('기존 메모' - existing note), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from 'create_note' by specifying it works on existing notes, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_note' or 'search_notes' beyond the action verb.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_note', 'delete_note', or 'search_notes'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a note ID), error conditions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling names alone.

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