user_passkey_register_post

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about mutating state, authentication requirements, or failure modes. The important behavior (confirm:true preview mode in rw mode) lives only in the schema, not 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?

Four lines, of which only one conveys purpose; 'POST /user/passkey/register', 'Тег: Passkey Регистрация' and 'Спека: user' duplicate information already present in the tool name and routing metadata. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the raw path.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least note that this completes a two-step passkey ceremony and that it writes credential data. Neither the flow context nor the write semantics are stated, leaving the agent reliant on the schema alone.

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%, so the schema already documents user_id and confirm, including the rw-preview behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 line 'Завершить регистрацию Passkey' states a specific action on a specific resource (finish passkey registration), which is better than a tautology. However, the rest is OpenAPI metadata (method path, tag, spec) that merely restates the tool name, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like user_passkey_register_get or user_auth_passkey_post.

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 guidance on when to call this versus user_passkey_register_get (which presumably initiates the flow) or the other passkey endpoints. The word 'Завершить' hints at a second step, but the agent must infer the ordering and prerequisites on its own.

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