nworks_board_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses authentication requirements (User OAuth, board scope) but lacks disclosure of other behavioral traits critical for a write operation: return value format (e.g., created post ID), side effects of sendNotifications parameter, or idempotency characteristics.

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?

Four structured segments with zero waste: (1) purpose declaration, (2) usage examples, (3) prerequisite tool reference, (4) auth requirements. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a write operation with 5 parameters and no annotations/output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context (auth, prerequisites) but leaves gaps regarding success indicators, error scenarios, and whether the created post ID is returned. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

While input schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explicitly linking boardId to the sibling tool nworks_board_list for lookup. The example utterances ('공지 작성해줘') also implicitly map to title/body parameters, assisting agent parameter binding.

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 core action using specific verb '작성합니다' (write/create) and resource '게시판에 글' (board post). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nworks_board_list and nworks_board_read by implying creation vs. retrieval, though it could explicitly contrast with update operations.

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 example requests ('게시판에 글 올려줘', '공지 작성해줘') indicating when to use the tool. Clearly states the prerequisite dependency on nworks_board_list for boardId lookup and specifies required OAuth scope (board), giving agents clear invocation prerequisites.

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