nworks_calendar_create

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

The description explicitly states that User OAuth authentication is required and specifies the scopes (calendar + calendar.read), which is critical behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'create' aligns with readOnlyHint=false. It also mentions '새로' (new) suggesting idempotency is not implied, matching idempotentHint=false. However, it does not detail what happens on success or failure, or whether attendees are notified by default, which is covered partially by the parameter default.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core function with trigger examples, and the second states the authentication requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes only essential usage context, no filler. Every word contributes to agent decision-making.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters including attendees, location, timezone) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides the essential trigger and auth context. The schema already covers all parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It could benefit from noting that userId defaults to 'me' or that sendNotification may cause side effects, but these are already in the schema. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format or defaults. Thus, baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 a specific verb ('만듭니다') and resource ('캘린더 일정'), and gives example user requests that trigger it. It is distinct from siblings like nworks_calendar_update and nworks_calendar_delete, which are clearly for different actions, and from nworks_task_create which creates a different resource type.

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 clear trigger phrases ('회의 잡아줘', '일정 등록해줘') and the required authentication scope, giving the agent a strong sense of when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (like nworks_calendar_update for modifications), but the context is sufficient for typical routing.

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