Завершить подключение Метрики

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

The annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but the description states the code is one-time and that a rejected code requires calling start_login again for a fresh one. Repeated calls with the same arguments are therefore not idempotent, so the description contradicts 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?

Three dense sentences cover the workflow, file permissions, live verification, postcondition, and recovery path. The main action is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the prerequisite, success condition, file permission, and failure recovery, which is strong for a one-parameter tool. However, the misleading idempotentHint leaves retry semantics ambiguous despite the one-time-code warning.

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%, so the schema already documents the code parameter. The description adds important meaning beyond the schema: the code comes from start_login, is valid for 10 minutes, and is single-use.

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 identifies the tool as the second step of connecting Metrika, specifying that it exchanges the confirmation code from start_login for an access token, saves it, and verifies it with a live request. This distinguishes it from siblings by naming its role and the exact operation it performs.

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 explicitly says this is the second step after start_login, explains that other tools become usable immediately after success, and tells the agent to call start_login again for a fresh code if the current code is rejected. This is clear when-to-use and recovery guidance.

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