Яндекс: подключить аккаунт

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

Annotations only flag readOnly=false/openWorld=true/destructive=false; the description adds substantial context: an external browser page opens, the human must click 'Allow', the call can block up to 3 minutes, and passwords/tokens never enter the chat. That is exactly the operational behavior an agent needs before invoking an interactive auth flow.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, then prerequisites, then per-parameter guidance. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the trailing org-ID navigation instructions make it read as a run-on and could be tightened.

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?

For an interactive OAuth-style tool with no output schema, the description covers everything material: trigger condition, sibling cross-reference, user-visible side effect, timeout, credential safety, and required setup data. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining how to obtain the Tracker org IDs (admin.yandex.ru → Organization profile for Yandex 360, console.yandex.cloud → Organization for Yandex Cloud). It does not clarify the interplay/default of the `services` array beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (connect/login via Yandex) and the exact resources it covers (Tracker, Mail, Calendar), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling yandex_status. An agent can distinguish this from the status tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('only when the user asks to connect Yandex or the service is not configured'), names the alternative to check first (yandex_status), and adds the prerequisite that the user must be warned a browser will open plus the org-ID requirement for Tracker.

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