nworks_mail_send

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

The description reveals critical runtime behavior: asynchronous transmission with an HTTP 202 on success, and the need for User OAuth authentication with a mail scope. These facts go far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), which say nothing about async behavior or auth rules. This is exactly the kind of extra context that prevents mis-invocation.

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-loaded: a direct purpose statement, example trigger phrases, async behavior/auth scope. Each sentence introduces a distinct, useful fact without redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick agent scanning.

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 a 100% documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use triggers, async semantics, and authentication. It omits detail about possible failure responses or output variables, but those are part of schema or dynamic runtime rather than static description needs. The coverage is strong for an invocation decision.

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 is already documented (semicolon-separated recipients, body, userId defaulting to me, contentType enum). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning on top of the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because structured data carries the full burden.

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 'NAVER WORKS 메일을 전송합니다' — a specific verb (send) and resource (mail). Trigger phrases like '메일 보내줘' make it easy for an agent to match user intent. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like nworks_message_send, but the Korean term '메일' unambiguously differentiates it from messaging tools.

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 concrete usage guidance with example requests ('메일 보내줘', '이메일 작성해줘'), helping the agent know when to select this tool. It does not state when not to use it or mention an alternative, but the email-sending context is clear enough for routing. The auth requirement also informs feasibility of use.

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