nworks_message_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses authentication requirements and setup dependencies, but fails to mention operational behaviors like rate limits, delivery guarantees, idempotency, or that this is a write operation creating server-side state.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste. The first clause states the core action, while the parenthetical concisely covers authentication method, setup requirements, and exclusions. Every segment provides essential information for invocation.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the complex authentication context (crucial for this API) but leaves gaps in behavioral context. It should ideally disclose side effects, error scenarios, or return value structure given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'user or channel' which maps to the mutually exclusive 'to' and 'channel' parameters, but primarily focuses on authentication prerequisites (serviceAccount, botId) that are not actually part of the input schema. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the well-documented schema.

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 specific action (메시지를 전송합니다/send message), resource (NAVER WORKS message), and scope (bot sends to user or channel). It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like nworks_mail_send (email), nworks_board_create (board posts), and calendar tools by specifying 'bot' messaging.

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 good prerequisites (Service Account auth, nworks_setup configuration, environment variable requirements) and negative constraints (User OAuth not required). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus nworks_mail_send or when to choose 'to' versus 'channel' parameters.

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