Отключить VK Рекламу

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it specifies exactly what gets deleted (saved token and app data), what is excluded (env var token), and why remote revocation is not performed (because it would delete all tokens for the client_id). This goes beyond the annotations to fully disclose the tool's effects and side 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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core action (delete from disk) and then adds necessary clarifications about the env token and remote revocation. It is slightly longer than minimal but every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the exact effect, what is not affected, the manual workaround for the env token, and the rationale for not revoking remotely. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-level information, but none is needed.

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 it 'Deletes the saved token and VK Advertising application data from disk', naming the specific verb (deletes) and resource. It also explicitly clarifies what it does NOT do (touch the env token, revoke the remote token), which distinguishes it from related auth tools like start_login and finish_login.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to clear local state) and explains the limitation that the remote token remains active, with a note on how to revoke it manually if needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling auth tools like auth_status or start_login, though the purpose is implicit.

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