login_submit_code

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 2FA error-and-retry flow, which an agent could not otherwise infer. However it omits what a successful call returns, whether the session persists, and any rate-limit or failure behavior beyond the 2FA case.

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-loaded with the core action and the retry rule, then a compact Args block. Every line carries meaning, though the Args formatting is slightly heavier than needed.

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 3-param login tool with no annotations or output schema, the definition covers the action, the error path, and all parameters including the session linkage. The main remaining gap is the nature of the successful response and the session default.

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 0%, so the description must document the three params, and it does: 'code' is the received login code, 'password' is the 2FA password, and 'session' is the session being logged in and must match login_request_code. The session cross-reference is a genuine constraint the schema does not express, though the 'watcher' default is left unexplained.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Finish logging in with the code Telegram sent') and the second sentence clarifies the two-factor path. The phrasing 'Finish logging in' implicitly separates it from the sibling login_request_code, which starts the flow.

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?

Explains the retry condition clearly: if 2FA is enabled, the first call errors asking for the password and the tool must be called again with both. It also ties session to login_request_code, implying ordering. It stops short of an explicit 'call this after login_request_code' instruction.

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