Завершить подключение Аудиторий

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

The description adds useful context: token file permissions (0600), live verification against Audiences, no need to restart the client, and a 10-minute one-time code. However, the annotations declare idempotentHint=true, while the description explicitly says the code is one-time and requires a fresh start_login call if rejected. Repeated calls with the same consumed code are therefore not idempotent, so the description contradicts the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the primary purpose and then provide necessary side-effect, activation, and retry details. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 authentication tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers input source, token persistence, verification, immediate availability of other tools, and failure recovery. The only issue is the annotation contradiction, which is already reflected in behavioral transparency.

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?

The schema already documents the single required code parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantics beyond the schema: the code comes from start_login, is single-use, expires after 10 minutes, and should be refreshed if rejected.

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 identifies this as the second connection step: it exchanges the confirmation code from start_login for an access token. This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from start_login and all sibling 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?

It explicitly frames usage as the second step after start_login, states that other tools become available immediately after success, and instructs the caller to invoke start_login again for a fresh code if the current code is rejected. This gives clear when-to-use and retry guidance.

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