Завершить подключение Вебмастера

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

The description discloses side effects (saving a file with 0600 permissions) and code validity (single-use, 10 minutes), adding context beyond annotations. However, it contradicts the idempotentHint: true annotation because a single-use code makes repeated calls with the same argument non-idempotent, conflicting with the annotation's implication of safe repetition.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the step context ('Второй шаг подключения'), and contains no redundancy. Every sentence adds value, covering purpose, side effects, and failure handling.

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 the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow, side effects (file save and verification), and failure handling. It could more explicitly mention the return value or how success/failure is signaled, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 schema already describes the code parameter, but the description adds critical meaning: it must come from start_login, is one-time, and expires in 10 minutes. This extra context guides the agent on valid input beyond the schema's basic description.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: it exchanges a confirmation code from start_login for an access token, saves it with 0600 permissions, and verifies it with a live request. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_login (first step) and logout (opposite).

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 provides explicit usage context: it is the second step after start_login, and if the code is not accepted, it instructs to call start_login again for a fresh code. It also notes that after success, other tools work immediately without restart, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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