Register User

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a persistent write ('등록합니다') but never states permission requirements, behavior when user_id already exists, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens to the returned record — significant gaps for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. It is tight, though the brevity contributes to the documentation gaps noted elsewhere rather than being purely a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no sibling differentiation, the definition leaves an agent unable to call this tool confidently beyond supplying a user_id and a 4-digit PIN.

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 0%, so the description must document all four parameters. It adds real meaning only for 'pin' (minimum 4 characters, should not collide with others), while user_id, birth_year, and display_alias receive no explanation of format, validation, or purpose.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('신규 사용자를 등록합니다' – register a new user), which is clearly distinct from siblings like register_user_policy or update_user_rider. It does not explicitly route away from those siblings, but the creation scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus register_user_policy or the onboarding guide tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the user must not already exist. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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