user_auth_passkey_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not state that this is a credential-submitting write operation, what authorization or session state is required, or what a successful/failed response implies. The confirm-parameter preview behavior is documented only in the schema, not in the description.

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?

It is short, but a large share of the text is boilerplate metadata ('Тег:', 'Спека:') and a restatement of the method/path rather than informative content. It is front-loaded adequately but wastes its limited length on redundant labels.

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 mutation endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested request body, the description is too thin: it omits authentication prerequisites, the meaning of the returned preview vs. executed result, and any error behavior. The schema covers parameters, but the operational context an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (body, confirm, and user_id are each documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the passkey credential payload or the admin-on-behalf-of semantics, but it does not need to.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('POST /user/auth/passkey', 'Аутентификация пользователя с помощью Passkey'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as user_auth_post, user_passkey_post, user_passkey_register_post, or user_password_auth_post, leaving the agent to guess which authentication endpoint applies. The trailing 'Тег'/'Спека' metadata adds no clarity.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance; the description only names the endpoint and repeats its tag/spec. An agent cannot tell from this text when Passkey authentication should be chosen over password or Telegram auth. Only the HTTP method and path imply usage.

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