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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the returned access_token has a 7-day lifetime, is scoped to history/groups/diagnostics, and must not be shown to the user. It does not cover what happens on an invalid or expired code.

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 step and fallback condition, then the effect, then the token handling instructions. Dense but every clause carries information; the long nested parenthetical in step 2 slightly slows scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains that an access_token is returned, its lifetime and scope, and where to pass it. Combined with the 75%-documented schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error behavior and the name default are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema itself documents 'code' (6 digits), 'name' and 'session_id'. The description explains that session_id attaches the diagnostic session to the profile and that name is optional, but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete operations: verify the code, create/login to the profile, and bind the diagnostic session, and frames itself as step 2 / fallback of the email-confirmation flow. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces (ruforge_profile_request_code / ruforge_profile_link_session), so discrimination comes from the flow description rather than from direct sibling comparison.

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 parenthetical '(запасной путь — пользователь прислал код из письма вместо нажатия кнопки)' gives an explicit trigger condition and implicitly the alternative (clicking the button). Downstream usage is also spelled out: pass the token to ruforge_diagnostic_start / ruforge_deep_dive_start / ruforge_group_create. No explicit 'when not to use' or failure handling.

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