nworks_login_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It effectively explains the OAuth flow (returns URL, requires browser interaction, automatic token persistence) and warns about scope narrowing consequences. Lacks details on token expiration or idempotency, but covers the critical interactive behavior.

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?

Four well-structured Korean sentences with zero waste: action declaration → usage instructions → critical warning → rationale. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose and the 'Important' warning is appropriately emphasized for a parameter that should typically be omitted.

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 single-parameter auth tool without output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining the return value (URL) and side effects (token storage). It covers the complete authentication flow sufficiently, though it could mention session duration or that this is typically a one-time operation per session.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds substantial value by listing the specific API categories covered by the default scope (calendar, mail, tasks, drive, board) and explaining the negative consequence of narrowing scope (requires re-login), which goes beyond the schema's basic warning.

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 it 'starts User OAuth login' (specific verb + resource) for NAVER WORKS. It effectively distinguishes itself from the 22 operational siblings (calendar, mail, drive tools) by describing the authentication initiation flow required before using those tools.

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?

Provides clear procedural guidance (open URL in browser, token auto-saves) and explicit exclusions ('do not specify scope'). However, it could strengthen contextual guidance by explicitly stating this should be invoked before other nworks_* tools when authentication is needed, though this is implied.

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