Подтверждение кода из SMS

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

Annotations indicate the call is not read-only, not destructive, and open-world, but the description adds almost no behavioral clarity. It does not say whether the code is consumed, whether retries are possible, what happens on an invalid code, or whether the current session is updated.

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 short, but that brevity does not help because it is an under-specified and misleading sentence rather than a concise explanation. It repeats the same idea as the title without adding structure or actionable context.

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 a one-parameter tool, an output schema helps, but the description still leaves out the core flow: that an OTP was received by SMS and that calling this tool confirms it. It lacks any detail about prerequisites, errors, or integration with the login/session flow.

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 parameter schema is bare: one required string named 'otp' with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'SMS-код', which weakly suggests the value is a code from SMS, but it fails to clarify the expected format, how the user should obtain it, or whether the code must be sent as digits or text.

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 says 'Отправить SMS-код' ('Send an SMS code'), which does not say the tool confirms or verifies an OTP. The tool name confirm_otp and title 'Подтверждение кода из SMS' point to confirmation, so the description is likely to mislead an agent into thinking the tool sends an SMS rather than validates a code.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related auth tools such as login, confirm_password, confirm_pin, refresh_session, or session_status. The description neither explains that the user must have received an SMS code first nor describes what happens after confirmation.

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