login_complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the three calling variants and the 2FA sequence, which is substantive. It does not mention session side effects or error behavior, but for a login-completion step this is reasonably transparent.

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 short sentences with front-loaded intent and no filler. Every sentence conveys a distinct call scenario, and the ordering mirrors the logical authentication flow.

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 tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the main input space well. It does not explicitly state the prerequisite that login_send_code or login_qr must be invoked first, though this is inferable from the sibling tools and the wording 'после сканирования'.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does. It defines 'code' as coming from a Telegram message, 'password' as the 2FA step after code, and clarifies that a QR login requires no arguments. This adds meaning well beyond the bare optional schema fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Завершить вход' (complete login), and clearly identifies the tool as the completion step for authentication. It differentiates itself from siblings like login_send_code and login_qr by describing distinct call modes: code-based, password/2FA-based, and QR-based.

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 gives concrete usage instructions: pass the code from Telegram, follow with password if 2FA is enabled, or call with no arguments after a QR scan. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions explicitly, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this step applies.

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