Отключить Директ

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specific details: it only removes the saved token, leaves the env var token untouched, and does not revoke access on Yandex side. This is valuable context beyond the generic destructive flag and fully aligns with the annotations.

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 three sentences long, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and important caveats in the following ones. It is concise, well-structured, and avoids redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: what is deleted, what isn't, and what remains active. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and side effects without needing further documentation.

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 takes no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The empty schema is sufficient, and the description adds behavioral context but not parameter-specific information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 the action ('deletes the saved Direct token from disk') and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from the environment-variable token. It also notes that access remains active on Yandex side, further clarifying scope. This is precise and distinguishable from other auth-related tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it does clarify what it does not do (env var token, revocation). It hints at an alternative (revoking via Yandex ID) but does not frame it as a tool choice or provide explicit when/when-not guidance. The purpose is clear, but usage guidance is minimal.

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