ecount_create_board_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the rate limit (10초/1회) and the response structure (data array with seq, result, error), which is valuable. It does not detail side effects like whether multiple posts are created atomically or any permission requirements, but it does communicate the mutating nature and error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by field usage, use case, rate limit, and response format. The opening '게시글 입력.' is slightly redundant with the next sentence but does not significantly hurt clarity; otherwise, every sentence adds useful 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?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, but the description compensates by defining the response format and rate limit. It also explains the board ID and typical usage, covering the essential aspects of a create operation. Minor gaps exist, such as not explicitly stating that multiple posts can be created in one call or requiring authentication, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all properties, including bizz_sid, title, body_ctt, cust, prod, pic, and progress_status. The description mostly restates schema information (e.g., bizz_sid as board ID, title/body_ctt as inputs, customer/item/manager links) without adding new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool registers a post to the ECOUNT ERP bulletin board ('ECOUNT ERP 게시판에 글을 등록합니다'), specifies the resource type (게시판), and provides board ID semantics. It also mentions the use case (사내 공지나 업무 기록), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create products, customers, or sales orders.

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 explicitly says it is used for writing internal notices or work records ('사내 공지나 업무 기록을 남길 때 사용합니다'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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