nworks_calendar_update

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

CDESCRIPTION has readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the OAuth scope requirement and eventId lookup path. However, it doesn't disclose what exactly gets overwritten (e.g., partial vs. full update semantics), which matters for an update tool flagged as destructive. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description could have elaborated on overwrite behavior, but doesn't — it's adequate but minimal.

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?

세 문장으로 목적, 예시, 인증 요구사항을 각각 요점만 전달한다. 문장마다 가치가 있으며 불필요한 내용이 없다. 예시가 실제 사용자 의도와 정확히 대응되어 의미를 더한다.

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?

9개의 파라미터와 destructive한 업데이트 특성을 가진 도구임에도, 부분 업데이트(patch)인지 전체 교체(replace)인지, sendNotification 기본값(false)이 의미하는 바가 무엇인지 등 핵심 행동이 명시되지 않았다. 출력 스키마가 없다는 점을 감안하면, 업데이트 의미론에 대한 설명이 조금 더 있으면 좋았을 것이다.

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 every parameter already has a Korean description in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage, but it also doesn't clarify interaction between parameters (e.g., start/end relationships, timezone inheritance). Baseline 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?

한 문장으로 명확한 동사(수정)와 대상을 제시하며, '일정 시간 변경해줘' 식의 예시로 의도를 구체화한다. 형제 도구(create/delete/list)와 이름상으로 명확히 구분되며, eventId 조회를 위해 nworks_calendar_list로 연결시킨다.

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?

도구를 호출할 사용자 발화 예시를 제시해 LLM이 트리거 조건을 명확히 인식할 수 있다. 다만 create/delete와의 명시적 대안 비교나 '~한 경우에는 사용하지 말 것'과 같은 제외 조건은 빠져 있으나, OAuth scope 안내와 eventId 조회 가이드가 실용적 도움을 준다.

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