nworks_login_user

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

Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the full side-effect profile: it returns a URL to open externally, tokens are saved automatically, and the choice of preset affects which future tools can be used without re-login. It also warns that a read-only preset will require re-login for mutation tools. This is comprehensive transparency that the annotations do not provide.

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 brief, front-loaded with the primary action, then gives step-by-step behavior and an important parameter warning. No redundancy or filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple OAuth login tool, the description covers the return value (URL to open), the automatic token storage, and the implications of preset selection. Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent needs to know to correctly invoke and handle the result. No critical information is missing.

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?

While the schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches them with practical meaning: it explains that the default preset (=all) covers all API categories, warns against specifying a preset unnecessarily, and clarifies the scope parameter as a raw override for advanced use. This goes well beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 that the tool initiates a user OAuth login for NAVER WORKS, instructs the agent to open the returned URL in a browser, and notes that tokens are automatically saved upon completion. This distinguishes it from siblings like nworks_logout and nworks_setup, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit usage context: it tells the agent to avoid specifying a preset to get all API scopes, and explains the read-only preset for limited access. It also implies that login is a prerequisite for other tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like logout or setup. The guidance on preset selection is clear and actionable.

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