nworks_task_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses critical behavioral traits including OAuth scope requirements ('task + user.read scope') and default assignment logic. However, it omits return value format, idempotency characteristics, and error conditions for this mutation operation, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 consists of four efficient sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: operation definition, usage triggers, default behavior, and authentication requirements. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is no redundant or wasted text despite covering multiple dimensions.

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 the 100% schema coverage and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers invocation prerequisites (OAuth) and default parameter behaviors. It appropriately omits parameter repetition but could improve by disclosing the return value structure expected from this creation operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 6 parameters including date formats (YYYY-MM-DD) and defaults. The description reinforces the self-assignment default behavior but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 explicitly states '할 일(TODO)을 새로 만듭니다' (Creates a new TODO task), providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (task_update, task_delete, task_list) by emphasizing creation through trigger phrases like '할 일 추가해줘' and the word '새로' (newly).

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 concrete usage examples ('할 일 추가해줘', 'TODO 등록해줘') that indicate when to invoke this tool. It also clarifies default behavior ('기본적으로 자기 자신에게 할당'), helping the agent understand implicit assignments. However, it lacks explicit contrast with task_update for modification scenarios.

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