nworks_contact_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, correctly indicating a non-read write operation. The description adds critical behavioral details: the payload must conform to the NAVER WORKS API spec, that permission.accessibleMembers requires at least one member (usually oneself), and that User OAuth with contact scope is required. This supplements the annotations well, though it doesn't explain side effects or whether the tool is idempotent (though the annotation already covers idempotency).

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-loads the purpose and example, all in two sentences plus an example JSON. It is dense but not bloated; every piece adds value. The only slight inefficiency is the repeated mention of the mandatory fields in both prose and example, but this is acceptable for emphasis.

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 that the tool has a nested object schema, no output schema, and explicit annotations, the description covers the essential usage: purpose, required auth scope, payload structure, and constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to construct a valid request, though it does not mention possible error cases or how the created contact is returned (since no output schema is provided, the description could have stated that it returns the contact object, but this is a minor gap).

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% and the description goes far beyond the schema: it provides a full example payload with nested objects (contactName, emails, permission) and explicit required fields. Since the schema only describes 'payload' as an object, the description compensates by detailing the internal structure, which is highly valuable for constructing a valid payload. The only minor gap is not spelling out optional field semantics, but the example covers the essentials.

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 clear verb and resource ('Create contact') in a Korean sentence for requests like 'add contact'. It lists the mandatory fields (contactName, permission) and gives a full JSON example, which unambiguously differentiates it from sibling contact tools like nworks_contact_update/delete/list. The example clarifies the exact structure.

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 a concrete use case ('연락처 추가해줘' requests) and mentions the requirement for User OAuth authentication with contact scope. While it does not explicitly compare against alternatives (e.g., nworks_contact_update for editing), the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool, but it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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