Завершить подключение VK Рекламы

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

The description is rich in behavioral detail (file permissions 0600, live validation request, token lifetime, auto-renewal, new token per call, 5-token limit, invalid_client meaning). However, it directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=true by stating 'каждый вызов создаёт НОВЫЙ токен' and warning about a maximum of 5 active tokens, meaning repeated calls have distinct external effects.

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 front-loaded with the core action and every subsequent sentence carries distinct operational value: file permissions, immediate live check, no restart, token lifecycle, repeat policy, token limit, and a common error. There is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisite sequence, side effects, security posture, success condition, and a common failure mode. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but the success state ('остальные инструменты работают немедленно') is sufficiently clear for an agent to act.

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 of parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by indicating the parameters come from start_login, tying them to a sibling tool, and explaining that invalid_client means the pair is incomplete or from different apps. It also reinforces the sensitivity of clientSecret.

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 uses a specific verb ('обменивает' / exchanges) and a clear resource ('client_id и client_secret ... на токен доступа'), and identifies itself as the 'Второй шаг подключения' (second connection step). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_login and auth_status.

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 says this is the second step after start_login, states that after success other tools work immediately, and advises that repeat calls are unnecessary. It does not explicitly name alternatives like auth_status for checking status, but the sequencing and repeat guidance are clear.

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