login_new_qq_by_qrcode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the flow stops the running NapCat process, wipes auto-login config, generates qrcode.png, pops up the image, waits for a scan, then writes OneBot 11 port config and switches to a background daemon. These are exactly the destructive and side-effecting traits an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then uses a numbered execution flow that is easy to scan. The trailing :param lines duplicate the schema rather than adding value, which is the only real waste in an otherwise well-structured description.

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 complex multi-step, side-effecting login operation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, timing, and the resulting port configuration. It does not say what the tool returns on success/failure, which is a minor remaining gap.

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% and the two params (open_image default true, wait_scan_seconds default 45) are already fully documented in the schema; the description repeats them nearly verbatim. No additional syntax or behavioral meaning is added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: starting a new QQ account QR-code login flow. The parenthetical narrows the scenario (binding a new QQ or re-scanning when old credentials expire), which separates it from siblings like switch_qq_account and get_login_qrcode_image without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: binding a new QQ account or re-authenticating when existing credentials have expired. It gives clear triggering conditions but does not name alternative tools (e.g., switch_qq_account) that an agent might otherwise consider, so this lands just under the top band.

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