nworks_mail_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses: (1) async behavior with HTTP 202 success code, and (2) User OAuth authentication requirement with specific 'mail' scope. Missing rate limits or failure behavior details prevents a 5.

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?

Single sentence efficiently packs four critical elements: purpose, usage triggers, behavioral trait (async/202), and authentication requirements. No redundant or filler content; every clause 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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers critical operational context (auth, async behavior). Mention of HTTP 202 partially compensates for missing output schema, though error response details are absent.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (all 7 parameters documented including semicolon separators for multiple recipients). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is appropriate baseline when schema is comprehensive.

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?

Description explicitly states 'NAVER WORKS 메일을 전송합니다' (send NAVER WORKS email) with specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings like nworks_message_send through example trigger phrases ('메일 변데줘', '이메일 작성해줘') that clearly signal email-specific intent.

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?

Provides clear positive context with example user phrases ('메일 본데줘', '이메일 작성해줘') indicating when to use. However, it lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for chat messages') or named alternatives like nworks_message_send, preventing a 5.

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