Начать подключение Вебмастера

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that no config edit or restart is needed, the returned code expires in 10 minutes, and the code can only be exchanged by this server. This adds meaningful security and lifecycle context.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: primary purpose, return value, user interaction steps, next-step handoff, and security/expiry details. It is front-loaded and compact for the amount of operational guidance it provides.

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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is returned, what the user must do, what to pass to finish_login, and the code's validity/security. No critical gap remains for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 zero parameters, so the schema covers everything and the description does not need to document parameter meaning. It still clarifies that no configuration or restart is required, which is the relevant semantic for a no-argument call.

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?

Description opens with the explicit role ('Первый шаг подключения') and states the concrete return value: a link to the Yandex OAuth page. It clearly separates this tool from finish_login by naming it as the first step.

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 specifies the exact workflow: show the full link, ask the user to authenticate, confirm access, and send back the code. It explicitly directs the resulting code into finish_login, naming the sibling alternative and giving clear when-to-use context.

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