Завершить подключение Директа

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

The description adds valuable behavior (file permission 0600, live verification, no restart needed, 10-minute TTL), but it contradicts the idempotentHint=true annotation by calling the code 'одноразовый' (one-time) and instructing a fresh code when it is not accepted. A one-time code means repeated calls with the same parameter cannot be idempotent, so the annotation conflict forces a score of 1.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; key action, side effects, success consequence, and failure handling are each given one focused sentence. The essential 'second step' context is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter auth-completion tool, the description covers the prerequisite, file side effect, live validation, and failure recovery. Minor gaps remain: it does not describe the exact response/error shape or whether an existing token file is overwritten, but no output schema is present so these are not blocking.

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 is 100% and already defines 'code' as the confirmation code shown by Yandex. The description adds useful lifecycle semantics beyond the schema: the code is single-use, expires in 10 minutes, and must be refreshed via start_login if rejected.

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 names a specific action and resource: it exchanges the confirmation code from start_login for an access token, saves it to an owner-only file, and verifies it with a live Direct request. It also frames itself as the 'second step of connection', which distinguishes it from start_login, logout, 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 states when to use the tool ('Второй шаг подключения', with a code from start_login) and what to do on failure: call start_login again for a fresh code. It also tells the agent that after success the rest of the tools work immediately, so sequencing is clear.

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