Подтверждение PIN

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat them. The phrase 're-auth' adds a little context beyond the annotations, implying a state change on the current session. However, it does not reveal what happens to the session, whether a pending PIN is required, or whether there are rate limits or other restrictions, so the behavioral transparency is still limited.

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 consists of a single short sentence, but it is underspecified rather than the intentionally concise. It lacks key information about the re-auth flow, the effect of the call, and the relation to other auth tools, so the shortness works against the usability. It is not a well-earned conciseness.

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 context signals show a large set of auth-related siblings (login, confirm_otp, refresh_session, session_status, confirm_password), yet the description does not explain how confirm_pin fits into that flow. With an output schema present we do not need to document return values, but the absence of when/why to call this tool makes it incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and there is only one required parameter 'pin'. The description explicitly says 'Отправить PIN', which in essence associates the 'pin' parameter with the value to be sent. Nevertheless, it provides no information about the format, potential restrictions, or how the PIN is obtained/used in the re-auth flow. This partial clarification is better than nothing but does not fully compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 states a concrete verb и объект: 'Отправить PIN' (send PIN), and adds the context '(re-auth)'. However, it does not clearly differentiate the tool from siblings like confirm_otp or confirm_password, and the relationship between name 'confirm_pin' and 'send PIN' is slightly ambiguous. It is minimal but comprehensible.

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 only hint is the 're-auth' abbreviation, which suggests the tool is for re-authentication, but there is no explicit instruction on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as login, confirm_otp, or confirm_password. No conditions or exclusion she is provided, so the agent cannot reliably distinguish this from its siblings.

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