nworks_message_send

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the authentication mechanism, required environmental setup, and that the bot sends to users or channels. It does not describe failure modes or rate limits, but the added auth details are valuable.

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, front-loading the primary action and then adding prerequisite details. It avoids fluff and includes necessary context (auth requirements) without being overly verbose. Slightly more could be trimmed, but it is well-structured.

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?

The description covers key contextual aspects: prerequisite setup, environment variable requirement, and target types. With full schema coverage for inputs and no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It might benefit from noting error behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for a sending tool.

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 all parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it only gives authentication context. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool sends NAVER WORKS messages via bot, specifying recipients as users or channels. The verb '전송' (send) and resource '메시지' are concrete, and it is implicitly distinct from sibling tools like nworks_message_members, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 important context about prerequisites (Service Account, nworks_setup, environment variables) and notes that User OAuth is unnecessary. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or include exclusion conditions, so guidance is incomplete.

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