Завершить подключение Яндекс Товаров

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

The description contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=true. It states 'Код одноразовый' (code is one-time) and lives 10 minutes, implying that calling the tool twice with the same code will fail, which is not idempotent. This is a direct contradiction, so the description fails to align with 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?

The description is a single paragraph that covers essential details without excessive verbosity. It includes the exchange, token storage permissions, immediate feed check, failure handling, and code lifetime. While it is somewhat dense, every sentence contributes useful information, earning a solid score.

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?

Given this is a login completion step with side effects (token storage, feed verification), the description fully covers the workflow: what it does, what to expect after success, how to diagnose wrong-account issues, and how to handle expired codes. No output schema exists, so return values are not needed, and the description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% and the parameter 'code' already has a clear description. The tool description adds context about the code coming from start_login and being one-time, but this does not significantly enhance the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema already provides (it is a confirmation code from Yandex).

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 the tool's purpose: it exchanges the confirmation code from start_login for an access token, saves it with restrictive permissions, and immediately verifies by fetching feeds. It explicitly identifies itself as the second step of the connection process, distinguishing it from start_login and other auth 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?

The description provides explicit sequential guidance: it is the second step after start_login, and if the code is not accepted or feeds are not visible, it instructs to call start_login again and use the correct account. It also clarifies when other tools become usable immediately after success, giving clear usage context.

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