nworks_board_create

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

Annotations already carry the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds a practically important disclosure — 'User OAuth 인증 필요 (board scope)' — which is real operational context given the login/logout/setup sibling tools. It does not describe the response shape, but the annotation coverage plus the auth note justify a 4.

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?

Three compact clauses with zero waste: the action, the triggering intents, and the prerequisite/auth requirements. The core purpose is front-loaded before auxiliary details, and every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational needs: core purpose, example intents, how to resolve boardId, and the auth requirement, while annotations cover the safety profile. The only meaningful gap is the unspecified return value (e.g., whether the created post's ID is returned), which matters precisely because no output schema exists.

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 baseline of 3 applies: all five parameters (body, title, boardId, enableComment, sendNotifications) are already documented with descriptions and defaults in the schema. The description's only parameter-related note — the boardId lookup route — duplicates the schema's own boardId description, so it adds no net semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource — '게시판에 글을 작성합니다' ('writes a post on the board') — which unmistakably identifies a create operation and sets it apart from the board-read siblings (nworks_board_list, nworks_board_posts, nworks_board_read). The example user intents ('게시판에 글 올려줘', '공지 작성해줘') further pin down call intent for an agent matching natural-language requests.

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 gives clear usage context via example trigger phrases and an explicit prerequisite route: 'boardId는 nworks_board_list로 조회 가능' directs the agent to nworks_board_list when an ID is missing. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly says when not to use this tool versus the board read/list siblings.

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